Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill. Members should have in front of them the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate; a supplement to the marshalled list, which contains one manuscript amendment; and the groupings, which I have agreed. Amendment 154, as shown on the supplement to the marshalled list, will be debated with the amendments in group 3 and considered after amendment 72.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division this morning. The period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate; all other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 1—Duty of local authority to provide adoption support services
Group 1 is on adoption services. I will put the question on the amendments to amendment 4 before putting the question on amendment 4 itself. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4, 4A, 4B, 5 to 14, 80, 15 to 22, 81, 23 to 28, 82, 29 to 33, 83, 61, 62, 64, 65 and 75 to 79.
I echo Lord James's earlier comments by acknowledging that the bill is technically complex, as is reflected by the fairly large number of amendments that are before the Parliament.
Barring Adam Ingram's amendments 4A and 4B, to which you referred, Presiding Officer, all the amendments in the group were lodged by the Scottish Executive. The Executive amendments all hinge on amendment 4, the purpose of which is to bring together various provisions on adoption support services and those categories of people who have access to them. That has been done to provide a clearer and tighter structure to part 1 of the bill. I took up the issue in discussion with the Education Committee at stage 2.
In the bill as amended at stage 2, the duty of the local authority is defined exclusively as providing an "adoption support service". That description is too narrow, given the bringing together of the various forms of pre-adoption, adoption and post-adoption services. The definition would be liable to cause confusion, and it does not reflect the breadth of adoption services that a local authority is expected to provide. For that reason, we have returned to the terminology of "an adoption service" rather than "adoption support service". Under the revised structure, adoption support services now feature as a component of the adoption service, rather than defining it.
Amendment 4 takes the list of categories of people who are eligible to receive adoption support services from section 6(1) and inserts it into section 1. Accordingly, section 6 is removed by amendment 15. In addition, the list is reduced from 22 categories to 12, which must be a good thing. That has been achieved by combining categories, and no category of people has been excluded. In other words, there is no change in the policy effect of section 6. Amendment 4 also takes the list of services to which those categories of people have access out of section 6(2) and inserts it into section 1. Some of the categories that were previously listed at section 6(2) have been extracted from the list to form a subset of services called adoption support services, to which paragraph (e) of new subsection (1C), which amendment 4 adds to section 1, refers, and which is defined at new subsection (1D).
Restructuring the old section 6(2) allows different parts of the adoption service to be provided in different ways. Those parts that will be listed at proposed new section 1(1C) relate to the assessment of children who may be adopted, the assessment of prospective adopters, arrangements for placing children for adoption and the provision of information about adoption to the people who are listed at section 1(1B). I hope that everyone is entirely with me so far. Those parts of adoption support services include the provision of information, guidance and counselling for people who are affected by adoption.
In keeping with those changes, amendment 7 divides section 1 thematically into two sections in order to achieve a more logical, coherent structure. The first of those sections, "Duty of local authority to provide adoption service", provides a definition of the adoption service that a local authority has a duty to provide, with a definition of adoption support services as a component of that. The second section, "Carrying out of duties imposed by section 1", states the factors to which a local authority must have regard for the purpose of carrying out the duties that are imposed by the first of the two sections. It also states:
"A local authority may carry out the duties imposed … by securing the provision of its adoption support services by a registered adoption service."
"Registered adoption service" is then defined.
Amendment 8 transfers the regulation-making power that was previously at section 6(4), as amended, to after section 1, in keeping with the bill's revised structure.
Amendments 12, 14 and 80 amend section 4, which provides for a definition of the adoption service under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001. Section 2(11) of the 2001 act provided for the definition of the adoption service, and section 2(12) provided that,
"For the purposes of subsection (11)(b) above, the making of arrangements for the adoption of a child where the proposed adopter is a relative of the child is not an adoption service."
The amendments do not change that situation, but merely insert revised definitions at sections 2(11) and 2(12) of the 2001 act to reflect the restructuring of the bill. Parents and relatives should not be included under the definition of an adoption service, as that would mean private individuals being subject to inspection by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, which is obviously not what is intended.
Amendment 80 provides that, for a parent or relative, the making of arrangements for the adoption of a child or the placing of a child for adoption is not considered an adoption service. Amendments 18 and 20 amend section 8 to provide that a local authority must provide to a person mentioned in new subsection (1B) of section 1 information about adoption.
The remaining Executive amendments are all technical in nature and are intended to account for the changes in terminology and definition; to amend references to reflect the changes in the bill's structure; and to achieve a more logical, thematically grouped structure in the light of those changes. I ask the Parliament to support those amendments.
I am conscious of a glazed look in the Presiding Officer's eyes as I go through these amendments.
Not at all.
Amendments 4A and 4B were lodged by Adam Ingram. The purpose of amendment 4A is to include counselling and assistance to birth parents who are considering giving up their child for adoption as a distinct service under section 1. That service would be provided automatically, without assessment. The point here is whether counselling and assistance to birth parents who are considering relinquishing their baby at birth—obviously an important matter—can be described as adoption support. We feel that it is reasonable to include support to a birth parent who is giving up, or thinking about giving up, their baby for adoption under the label of adoption support services. In practical terms, that means that a birth parent in such a situation would be subject to an assessment of need before the support services of counselling and assistance were delivered.
We view the automatic assessment as a positive mechanism rather than, as some people have argued, a means for local authorities to sift out people from receiving services, perhaps because of resource implications. The aim of assessment is to allow a structured, strategic, long-term approach to support, aimed at the specific targeting of services to needs, rather than generic provision in certain circumstances. It seems to us desirable that the complex needs of a mother who is relinquishing her child, when the emotional repercussions have lifelong implications, should be very carefully considered, perhaps almost more so than for anybody else who is receiving support of that kind.
That does not prevent such services from being delivered on an emergency basis under section 50, but a proper assessment thereafter is desirable for support planning and increasing the awareness of services available. In terms both of cohesive bill structure and of active management of birth parents' support needs, we want to retain that service under adoption support services with the associated amendment.
Amendment 4B would provide for services for supporting
"persons who may adopt a child"
and
"persons who have adopted a child"
and their families to be included in the definition of adoption support services in subsection (1D) that will be inserted by amendment 4. As far as we can see, that has already been accounted for by subsection (1D), which includes counselling, guidance and any other assistance in relation to the adoption process that the local authority considers appropriate under the definition of adoption support services, which are further defined as being provided to those who are listed at subsection (1B), including people who may adopt a child or who have adopted a child, and their children, or children treated by them as their children. As such, amendment 4B seems unnecessary, and it is rather vague, because it is not quite clear what is meant by the word "services" in that context, nor who is included in the meaning of the word "families".
I hope that Adam Ingram will accept my rather long and convoluted explanation of the matter, and will not move his amendments. I will be interested in hearing his comments.
I move amendment 1.
The minister will appreciate that we broadly support the Executive's amendments, for the reasons that he expressed; we have discussed these matters at committee many times. However, I will focus on the two amendments in my name. Amendment 4A, which was suggested by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering Scotland, makes it clear that services to birth parents who are relinquishing their children for adoption should be an integral part of the general adoption service.
Counselling and other assistance should be available on request, as is the case under the current law. If no provision of that kind is made in the bill, that service will be treated by local authorities as if it were a support service, which is not provided automatically on request but is subject to a needs assessment. Parliament is well aware that the assessment process is often subject to delays, and even waiting lists, depending on resource pressures at local authority level.
The BAAF Scotland argues that, by their very presentation, birth parents will need that service. It is not hard to foresee the prospect of young, perhaps desperate, expectant mothers breaking off contact with agencies that refuse immediate help. Section 50, on urgent provision, does not cover that scenario. Its focus is on an adoptive family facing urgent problems, rather than on a relinquishing birth parent.
Amendment 4B would extend the list of support services provided beyond the limited list that is laid out in subsection (1D) in Executive amendment 4. Adoptive families require access to services that go well beyond counselling, guidance and assistance in relation to the adoption process. Those services can range from specialist therapeutic services, helping traumatised children to heal psychologically, to respite care. As members will be aware, current provision is subject to a postcode lottery. Recognition in the bill of the wide range of services required by adoptive families is a necessary first step to improving the current system. If the minister will not accept amendment 4B, what commitment is he prepared to give that the types of services that I have mentioned will be included in regulations, as defined in amendment 8?
I support Adam Ingram's amendment 4A, which would include in the categories that are introduced by amendment 4 the provision for counselling to birth parents who are considering relinquishing their child. That is necessary to make certain that access to such advice is rapid and available. I also support his amendment 4B, which would tighten up the definition of what adoption services should be.
The media focus on more controversial aspects of the bill has obscured the fact that improving the support that is available to adoptive families is at its heart. The needs of young people who are being adopted, and the demands that they place on families, are increasing all the time, as has been pointed out throughout stages 1 and 2, and the support that we offer families is therefore crucial if we are to make a success of families as adopters.
A lot of the detail about support has been left to regulation, and although I welcome the series of amendments outlined by the minister, including those on regulations, I seek further assurance that he will use those regulations to improve education and training for all those who deal with adoptive families. In particular, I ask the minister to consider further the concerns raised by Adoption UK, which has outlined a series of measures that it believes need to be addressed in detail if we are to support families. The measures that it considers necessary include access to specialist therapeutic psychological services, access to specially trained therapists, recognised specialist support centres, educational services, parent mentors and buddies, and intensive support for families who face disruption. If the minister can tackle those issues, as well as tackling the rather patchy and inconsistent provision of services across the country, that will address those concerns fully.
I want to put on record the concerns that the Education Committee expressed about the way in which the bill appeared before it at various stages. When stage 3 is completed today, the bill will be substantially different from the one that appeared at stage 1, having been restructured twice, first at stage 2 and again at stage 3. That raises questions about members' ability to scrutinise effectively the overall shape of the bill as it goes through Parliament, and the Executive needs to look at that carefully in the future.
Part of the concern is simply that too much legislation is being put through the Parliament by the Executive, and that there are not enough drafting resources in the Executive to meet demand. I hope that the Executive will consider that matter seriously, both when it reviews the bill's passage through Parliament and in the future in relation to other bills. I do not wish to criticise ministers, or the bill team, who have done their best to get the bill right, but I have serious concerns.
When he sums up, can the minister assure me that there is nothing in section 1(1), on the duties of each local authority, that will prevent local authorities from working together to provide adoption services?
I can assure Iain Smith that there is nothing to stop local authorities working together. That already happens in many aspects of the work that they do.
I accept what Iain Smith says about the restructuring of the bill. It was complex. We were bringing together different sorts of adoption services—pre-adoption, during the adoption process and post-adoption—to create a more comprehensive structure.
Does the minister acknowledge that that was not in the bill at stage 1, and that the redefinition of adoption to include the whole process—pre-adoption, during adoption and post-adoption—rather than simply what happens at the point of adoption was the result of cross-party pressure from the committee? That substantial rewriting of the bill has meant that it was not possible for the committee or the Parliament to make any changes until we saw the amendments that were lodged five days ago.
I accept that, but it was always our intention nevertheless to improve adoption support services generally. As I recognised early in stage 2, the bringing together of the different structures did not produce a terribly cohesive framework in terms of the statutory wording. There has not been a significant policy change in most areas, but we now have a structure that is a bit more thematic and coherent than it was at the beginning of the bill process. I accept that it is difficult to get the scrutiny of complex legislative structures right, but we now have a structure that is capable of taking us forward much more successfully, to provide the coherent services that people who get involved in adoption, from whatever perspective, deserve and ought to have.
We have recognised from the beginning that adoption support is an important area that needs to be improved. When we come to regulation, it is against that background that we want to consider the sort of issues that Ken Macintosh, Adam Ingram and others have talked about, such as addressing patchy service provision across the country. Members will agree that such detailed matters are not for the bill; information will change over time as knowledge increases, so it will be right to include those matters in regulations. I assure members that we will consider the matters that will give flesh to the provisions.
I turn to Adam Ingram's two amendments—amendments 4A and 4B. Apart from the emergency arrangements in section 50, which have already been mentioned, we should consider sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b), and section 8(2), which allows the provision of services without assessment. It is important to consider the longer term; we should not simply deal with people in one moment and then move on. We want to be able to get involved when there are emergencies, so that we can deal immediately with problems, but we also want to be able to make long-term assessments and to maintain our involvement with families. That is what the bill, and the Executive amendments, will allow us to do. Amendments 4A and 4B are not necessary; in fact, if agreed to, they would add confusion to a coherent structure. I therefore urge members to reject Adam Ingram's amendments 4A and 4B—always assuming that he moves them.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Robert Brown].
Amendment 4A moved—[Mr Adam Ingram].
The question is, that amendment 4A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
In that case, there will be a division but we will first suspend for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 71, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4A disagreed to.
Amendment 4B moved—[Mr Adam Ingram].
The question is, that amendment 4B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 71, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4B disagreed to.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendments 5 to 7 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
After section 1
Amendment 8 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 2—Local authority plans
Amendments 9 to 11 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Meaning of "adoption support service" in Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001
Amendments 12 to 14 and 80 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Adoption support services
Amendment 15 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 7A—Assessment of needs for adoption support services
Amendments 16 and 17 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Provision of adoption support services
Amendments 18 to 22, 81, 23 and 24 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 50—Urgent provision
Amendment 25 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 57—Guidance
Amendments 26 to 28 and 82 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 58—Regulations about adoption support services
Amendments 29 to 33 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 79—Power to provide payment to person entitled to adoption support service
Amendment 83 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Considerations applying to the exercise of powers
Group 2 is on matters to be taken into consideration in the adoption process. Amendment 84, in the name of Paul Martin, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 84 would insert into section 9(4) the words:
"the value of a stable family unit in the child's development".
Section 9 will be important in the adoption process because it deals with the crucial preparation stages for adoption. It is important that the right tone be set during those stages. Amendment 84 emphasises the importance of a stable family and reflects an ethos that is in the best interests of the child. It would ensure that consideration would, by law, have to be given to
"the value of a stable family unit in the child's development".
During the bill's progress, we have had a number of debates about whether we should include such a provision in the bill. We should not take for granted
"the value of a stable family unit in the child's development".
Rather, we should be proud to emphasise it by including those words in the bill, which we hope will be passed today. Given that children are considered for adoption because their families are not stable, we should ensure that at the early stages of the adoption process there is a legal requirement to give consideration to the value of a stable family, which would set the right tone for the future and ensure that children are given every possible positive opportunity.
Will the member tell us what he means by "stable family unit"? How does he define the term in the context that we are discussing?
I expected that question. There could be many personal definitions among the wide range of members of Parliament, the public and organisations that will have a responsibility to deliver the legislation. It is important that we consider amendment 84 not in isolation but in the context of the wide range of considerations that are set out in section 9, and in the context of other amendments to which the Education Committee agreed at stage 2. A wide range of issues must be considered in order to ensure that a family can give a child an opportunity for stability in the future. The approach in amendment 84 alone would not give a child such an opportunity, but it would make a positive contribution.
I move amendment 84.
Seven members have requested to speak. That will be possible only if members speak for less than two minutes.
It is important that we legislate on matters that can be defined. Paul Martin said that people have personal definitions of the term "stable family unit". Section 31 uses the term "enduring family relationship", which is a different way of saying stable family unit. The courts and adoption agencies will ensure that children are adopted only by people who are in enduring family relationships, which will be in the child's best interests. Section 31 therefore does exactly what Paul Martin wants the bill to do, so there is no need for amendment 84. If the change that amendment 84 would make has no substance, we must ask what it is for.
Section 9(3) says:
"The court or adoption agency is to regard the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout the child's life as the paramount consideration."
The idea that a court or adoption agency would regard an adoption by an unstable family unit as somehow safeguarding a child's welfare is absurd. We should stick with the bill, which provides that children can be adopted only by people who are in an enduring family relationship.
Will Fiona Hyslop clarify what she means by the term "enduring family relationship"?
An enduring family relationship is one that the people who will do the vetting and assessment of applicants judge to be a continuing relationship that will maintain the child throughout its life.
Adoption is not just about the point of adoption; it is about the post-adoption period, which goes on for a long time. We have voted on the importance of adoption services throughout the child's life; the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which underpins much of the bill, also refers to the welfare of the child throughout its life. I am confident that "enduring family relationship" is the term that we need. The term has a legal, rather than a personal definition, so we should stick with the bill as it stands.
There is a question about whether amendment 84 is necessary, given that the bill places importance on enduring family relationships. However, to reiterate the importance of such relationships would not be to the detriment of the bill. Perhaps amendment 84 should have referred to "an enduring family relationship", rather than "a stable family unit", but we would create no problems by reinforcing the need for an enduring family relationship when the best interests of the child are being considered.
We must bear it in mind that families in Britain come in many different shapes, sizes and types. I would be concerned about an implication that one type of family is better than another, but amendment 84 does not contain such an implication, so I am prepared to accept it on the basis that it would provide additional reassurance.
I support amendment 84, which is eminently sensible and would provide a necessary safeguard. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that would have made it harder for adoptions to take place in the context of casual relationships, which do not necessarily provide stability. That amendment did not command a majority on the committee, because it was felt that the process for adoption is so rigorous that the best interests of the child will always be paramount. However, something more is required.
I say to Fiona Hyslop that the wording in amendment 84 is not inconsistent with the phrase, "enduring family relationship", but the addition of the word "stable" is important. Amendment 84 would provide an important indicator by stressing the need for stability in a family. I am glad to give Paul Martin my support on this occasion.
I oppose amendment 84, which is also opposed by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, whose advice and assistance has been invaluable to Education Committee members throughout their consideration of the bill.
I had two grounds on which to oppose amendment 84; I now have three grounds. First, the amendment is unnecessary. Secondly, even if it were necessary to insert the words that amendment 84 would insert, it would be inappropriate to do so at the start of section 9(4). Thirdly, if the phrase "stable family unit" has many definitions and can mean anything to anyone, its inclusion in the bill would not make for good legislation.
The fundamental principle of adoption that the bill will establish is set out in section 9(3), which says that the paramount consideration must be
"the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout the child's life".
We should weigh up the value of every provision in, and proposed amendment to, the bill in the light of that fundamental principle.
Like Fiona Hyslop, I cannot envisage a situation in which a court or adoption agency, in exercising its powers under the bill, would consider placing a child for adoption in anything other than a stable family unit, whether the family was made up of a married couple, an unmarried couple, a couple who had entered into a civil partnership, a same-sex couple who had not entered into a civil partnership, or a single person. That principle is emphasised in paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 31(3), which use the term "enduring family relationship" in the context of couples who live together.
Will the member give way?
I will give way briefly, but I have limited time.
We agree that relationships must be enduring. However, an adoption is determined at a specific point in time and, because we have no crystal ball to tell us whether a relationship will endure, a judgment must be made on the basis of the circumstances at that time. Does the member therefore agree that the key issue is the stability of the relationship when the judgment is made, which is the issue that Mr Martin is trying to address in amendment 84?
That is complete and utter nonsense. In any assessment of the suitability of a person or couple to adopt under section 17(2), an adoption agency will have to take account of the stability of the home—in the past and in the future—that the applicants would give to the child. The insertion of the words "stable family unit" is unnecessary and, I contend, perhaps even dangerous. Amendment 84 would add nothing to the bill unless the intention is to define the phrase "stable family unit" in a way that differs from the definitions of who can adopt in sections 31 and 32. As we have heard, there is no definition of "stable family unit".
You must close now.
Section 9(4) sets out the child's rights, by providing that the court or adoption agency must have regard to
"the child's ascertainable views … the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background, and … the likely effect on the child, throughout the child's life, of the making of an adoption order."
Amendment 84 relates not to the child but to the suitability of the applicants and would not fit in with section 9. However, the fundamental reason why we should reject amendment 84 is that it is unnecessary, because the bill provides that the paramount consideration will be the need to safeguard and promote the child's welfare.
I agree with Iain Smith's concluding remarks and I cannot envisage a situation in which an adoption agency would not place a child in a stable family relationship. Therefore, I fail to see what the objection is to having those words in the bill, if we are serious about putting stable family relationships at the heart of our adoption process and about putting children at the heart of the bill. The group of vulnerable children about whom we are talking may have been in unstable family relationships or in unstable care home situations, so what is wrong with saying in the bill that, when they move into another situation, it should be a stable family relationship?
Members say that there is no definition of the term "stable family unit" but, equally, there is no definition of the term "enduring family relationship". What is the difference between them? The question is fundamental. Parliament should vote for amendment 84, because that would say what we have said in many pieces of legislation: that we want stability and the family to be at the heart of children's development. I urge members to support Paul Martin's amendment.
I oppose amendment 84. I was interested to hear Paul Martin's response to Iain Smith's question. We are making the law of the land here, so we must be absolutely clear. To me, the fundamental question is what, in the 21st century, a family unit is. Paul Martin lodged amendment 84, but he cannot tell us what he means by the term "family unit". He has made it clear that he does not know what the term means, but he expects us to vote for the amendment to include that term in the bill. I am sorry—that would not be good law and we should not support it.
I am in favour of amendment 84, in the name of Paul Martin. Section 9 is about considerations that apply to the exercise of powers. Amendment 84 seeks to put the needs of the child at the heart, core or centre of the adoption process, by emphasising the importance of a stable family to the consideration that agencies give to the matter.
It is difficult for most of us to know or even imagine the complex and tangled emotional web that children who are placed for adoption experience. Especially for children who are old enough to understand, adoption by its nature brings with it a past tragedy and, possibly, rejection. There is every possibility that children come to the process emotionally scarred, through no fault of their own. Therefore, the importance of a stable and loving relationship must be a primary consideration and should be enshrined in statute, because that would give powers to adoption agencies to deal with the matter appropriately. I support amendment 84.
It is important to remember that, when we make law, we should take account not only of whether the proposals are compatible with other legislative measures. We should also, as far as possible, take account of the wider public interest. For any law to have support, it is important that the wider public interest be considered. We have received representations from many groups giving various views on the issue, although I must say that I am concerned that relatively few of them talked about the interests of children, which is what the bill is about. It is vital that we reassure everybody who might be concerned, including children, that we are talking about stable family relationships.
Is not it the case that amendment 84 and at least one other amendment were lodged so late in the day that there has been little opportunity for any external bodies to make representations on them? Given that the mover of amendment 84 said that several debates took place on the issue during the passage of the bill, I seek clarification of why the amendment was lodged only 24 hours before this debate and was not embraced in the bill earlier.
That is probably an issue for the mover of the amendment to deal with in summing up. My view is that amendment 84 will give greater clarity in the bill on the circumstances in which adoption will be considered. Therefore, I support it.
I ask the minister to clarify one important point. Obviously, there are differing views about the correctness of amendment 84. Parliament has taken many measures to help groups that have previously been discriminated against. We can take pride in that, but one unfortunate by-effect is that some people have mistakenly got the idea that we are in some way opposed to marriage. As a Parliament that represents society, we must make it clear that we support stable and long-term relationships of all sorts and we must encourage people who believe in marriage to get married. Many of us are married and know that it is helpful in going through the rocky patches that any relationship goes through. We have said it before, but I would like the minister to say again absolutely clearly that, in helping other groups, we in no way denigrate marriage, and that people who are forming relationships and who believe in marriage should be encouraged to get married. That would help to assuage many fears in the country.
Christine May says that amendment 84 would introduce greater clarity, but we would have a bill with two forms of the same concept, using the terms "enduring" and "stable" respectively. Paul Martin, in closing, needs to explain with greater clarity what difference he intends the amendment to make. He says that it would strike the right tone. I and many members have sympathy with the idea that we need to strike the right tone in our debates on the issue. However, even if we get the tone right, that will not mean that we have a created good legislation.
I am yet to hear how decisions would be different if amendment 84 were agreed to. If Paul Martin wants to convince undecided members, he must say what decisions are at present being made wrongly because such a provision is not in law, what decisions would be made wrongly if the provision was not part of the bill when it becomes an act and what difference he intends it to make.
The debate has been useful. I say immediately that the Executive is taking a neutral stance on amendment 84. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to give members some background to the amendment, because some issues have been raised. At stage 2, Paul Martin lodged an amendment that sought to place a duty on courts and adoption agencies to consider married couples before any other prospective adopters. There was a lot of discussion about that and we resisted the suggestion on the ground that it would create a hierarchy of couples, with married couples automatically above all others, which we did not think was a desirable message to send out.
I echo Donald Gorrie's comments, which struck the right tone, to use Patrick Harvie's words. The Executive supports marriage and all forms of stable long-term relationships. It supports those relationships particularly as the backdrop to adoption legislation. However we arrive at it, the central issue is that the well-being of the child is paramount. Under section 9(3), that will be the overriding consideration that comes above all others. It could be argued that section 9 deals primarily with issues to do with the child, although as Irene Oldfather pointed out, it goes a bit beyond that and is on considerations that apply to the exercise of powers. Section 31 deals with the quality of adopters. One could make arguments about all that.
The central point for Parliament to determine is on definitions. Paul Martin wants to introduce into the bill the phrase
"the value of a stable family unit".
What does that mean? How is it defined? How will the courts interpret it? Those questions must be answered before Parliament decides on amendment 84. I was grateful to Paul Martin for not moving his amendment at stage 2, which was the right thing to do. At that time, we said that we would discuss the matter with him, which we have done.
What does the minister take amendment 84 to mean?
It is for Paul Martin to define what he means by amendment 84.
The overriding consideration is that the stability of any couple who are adopting a child is of the ultimate importance. That is central. Section 31 will already require the court to consider, among other aspects, whether a couple who do not have the recognised legal status of marriage or civil partnership are living together in an enduring family relationship. In assessing whether a couple meets that requirement, a court will in essence consider the same factors as it would consider under amendment 84.
In my view and the view of my officials, amendment 84 would add no additional legislative meaning to the bill. However, it is for Parliament to decide whether the additional security that would be given by the amendment is important.
Will the minister confirm what legal advice the Executive has had on the terminology in amendment 84?
I have just dealt with that. I said that the phrase "enduring family relationship" in section 31 seems to mean pretty much the same thing as the terminology in amendment 84. The official advice that we have is that the amendment would add no legislative meaning.
If the Executive is neutral on amendment 84, will the minister tell us how he is going to vote and why?
That is a matter that I will determine and indicate shortly. Members will see during the vote which way I will vote. I am putting forward the Executive's position on the matter.
We have had a robust debate on an important element of the bill.
The issue of definitions has been raised. I can think of a number of definitions in sections of the bill and amendments that have been passed by the committee that have to be clarified. Some of them are quite straightforward. For example, section 15 says that the child should be
"at least 19 weeks old".
That is absolutely straightforward. However, section 17 says that the agency must submit a report on
"the suitability of the applicants".
How is the suitability of the applicants decided?
There are a number of definitions that need clarification in the bill. I accept that there could be a number of interpretations of amendment 84: many members have interpreted it in different ways. However, the important thing about the amendment is that section 9 deals with the preparation stages of the adoption process, which I believe to be the most important part of the bill. It is the section that deals with the time when the future of the child is considered. I make no apologies to Patrick Harvie when I say that that is the part of the bill in which we set the tone for the consideration of the future of that child.
As Karen Gillon re-emphasised, children who are up for adoption will have been through a traumatic experience and some of them will have come from families that are not stable. I make no apologies for using the word "stable". The official definition of the word, in the "Oxford English Dictionary" is
"not likely to give way or overturn; firmly fixed".
I make no apologies for setting that in place. I think that we should make no apologies for ensuring that, at an early stage in the process, the child is given the best possible opportunity.
I appreciate that we should consider whether to include in the bill a number of definitions, but I could say that in relation to a number of amendments that members have lodged.
Will the member give way?
Mr Rumbles did not give way to me, so I will not give way to him.
I want amendment 84 to be included in the bill. It sets in place the tone for the future.
The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 51, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Group 3 comprises minor and consequential amendments. Amendment 85, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 89 to 93, 106, 107, 109 to 112, 114, 47, 48, 50, 55, 141 to 147, 149, 69, 70 and manuscript amendment 154.
The group consists entirely of minor and technical amendments. Amendment 85 will remove from section 9 text that is no longer necessary because we accepted an amendment from Ken Macintosh at stage 2, which inserted similar text in the start of the section. Amendment 89 will remove section 24, which is unnecessary because its effect is identical to that of section 19(4).
Amendment 90 will insert a new and more modern phrase into section 27. The concept of placing a child for adoption is familiar to practitioners and is in keeping with the language and approach of the bill. A similar change will be made by amendment 93, which will amend section 28.
Amendments 106, 107, 109 and 110 will all make changes to references to a child's age. The amendments are purely technical and will ensure that, throughout the bill, the age of a child is referred to in a consistent way.
Amendment 91 will improve the clarity of section 27 and remove any potential for confusion by removing a circular reference to a relevant period within which a child must be returned to a local authority by prospective adopters.
Amendments 92, 111 and 114 will all remove definitions of a registered adoption society. We have now provided a single definition for the whole bill, which will be introduced by amendment 143.
Amendment 112 will replace the word "applicants" with the phrase "prospective adopters", which is more accurate because, at the point in the process that section 65 deals with, people are not yet applicants. Continued use of the word "applicants" would also create internal consistency throughout the bill.
Amendment 47 is a drafting amendment that will make the wording of section 91(7) consistent with that of section 91A(4).
Amendment 48 requires more explanation. Members might be aware that there has been a great deal of discussion with stakeholders on what the interaction between the new permanence order provisions and the existing children's hearings provisions should be. I am grateful for the insights that the stakeholders have brought from their various perspectives and their differing views. I want particularly to mention Professor Kenneth Norrie, the BAAF, the Law Society and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration in that regard. It is thanks to them that we have created a bill that will enable the two systems to work together for the benefit of the child. Amendment 48 is one of a number of amendments that will create that alignment. The amendment makes clear that it is only during the process of the application for a permanence order, and before the outcome of the application has been determined by the court, that no supervision requirement can be made or varied in relation to the child. Amendment 50 is consequential on amendment 48.
Amendment 55 will move section 92 to after section 93, which will improve the structure of the bill because section 92 deals with the duty to apply for variation or revocation, which should logically come after section 93, which provides the general power to revoke.
Amendment 141 will add clarity to the definition of "applicant", without changing its meaning. Amendment 142 will add clarity to the definition of "guardian", without changing its meaning. Amendment 144 will improve the definition of "relative". It will provide that grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts be considered relatives of a child, whether by half-blood or full-blood and whether or not by affinity. The amendment will also include civil partners of relatives within the definition. Amendments 145 and 146 will remove text that has been made redundant because of clearer definitions at section 111.
Amendment 147 relates to an insertion into the Social Work (Scotland) Act 2001 and includes the relevant sections of the bill in references to regulation-making powers. The amendment will make paragraph 11 of schedule 2, the effect of which is the same, unnecessary. Amendment 149 will remove it.
Amendments 69 and 70 will combine two subsections into a single subsection and will change the order of references in the subsection to reflect the order as stated earlier in the bill.
Finally, amendment 154 is a technical amendment that will ensure that the reference to "relevant person" is inserted in the correct place.
I will be sitting an examination on this group of amendments at the conclusion of today's proceedings.
I move amendment 85.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
After section 9
Group 4 is on onward referral of prospective adopters. Amendment 86, in the name of Michael McMahon, is the only amendment in the group.
In speaking to my amendment 86, I will be as brief as possible and limit my explanation of its purpose to two points. The first is legislative and the second is practical.
The issue of how faith-based adoption agencies will operate under the new legislation has featured at every stage of deliberation on the bill. In spite of assurances from ministers, those who work in the faith-based agencies remain concerned that they will not be able to continue to operate as they would like to unless legal protection is provided to them.
It is important to note that my amendment would not take away any entitlement that is given to anyone in the bill. It seeks merely to protect the status quo as it relates to the faith-based agencies. Some have argued that the protection that the agencies seek can be provided in regulation, but the reality that they face is that there may be some who, in order to pursue an unreasonable test of the law, will seek to force faith groups to act against their philosophical beliefs.
This might not be the best analogy to use, but the Parliament introduced an act to deal with the fur farming trade not because of what it was doing—in fact, such a trade did not exist in Scotland—but because of what might happen if legislation did not exist to prevent the emergence of an unwanted scenario. That is all that the faith-based adoption agencies are seeking through the amendment—to be protected from what might happen.
There are other, possibly more important, practical considerations. The faith-based agencies do not have to exist, but they do exist, due to a desire to provide a specific form of adoption service. In doing so, they provide a service that is used by the wider community and which supports the public authorities. If, for whatever reason, the agencies are prevented from operating under their own auspices, they might not be able to continue to provide a service at all. The resultant gap in service provision would have to be filled somehow and the funding would have to come entirely from the public purse. The agencies receive financial support from the public purse, but a huge section of their funding comes from charitable donations. The agencies would not be able to continue without either funding stream.
I ask members to support my amendment, because I believe it to be a reasonable amendment that would do no more than enshrine the status quo in the bill, which will be an important piece of legislation.
I move amendment 86.
A considerable number of members wish to speak, so I will give members a strict two minutes.
During the Education Committee's consideration of the bill, we heard evidence from the faith-based agencies and we considered the issue of their not being forced to do things that would be against their conscience. It is important that they are protected and not forced to do anything that is against their conscience and their ethos, but the minister assured us at stages 1 and 2 that nothing in the bill will change the current situation and that the matter could be dealt with in guidance.
I have some concerns about that, and I am also concerned that amendment 86 does not say anything about people's right to exercise their conscience. It states only that adoption agencies must refer people on. I have some anxiety about the wording of the bill, and I would like to hear a little more about the effect that the amendment would have on the faith-based agencies. Could the matter be dealt with less controversially in guidance?
Amendment 86 is unnecessary. Not only does it reflect what happens at the moment, but the matter is already covered in guidance and the national standards, so there appears to be no need for it. Ministers have given the faith-based agencies clear assurances.
I seek guidance from the minister, because it seems to me that the amendment relates at least in part to a reserved matter. The question of whether an adoption agency can turn people away is a matter for anti-discrimination law. The Labour Government's legislation on discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities will cover any services that are bought on contract with public money and it will be effective from April next year. An affirmative instrument will be laid early next year. I ask the minister to comment on how amendment 86 would sit with that.
The amendment is illogical, discriminatory, or both. It states:
"Where an adoption agency decides not to assess a person as a prospective adopter … it must refer that person"
elsewhere. However, on what basis would an agency decide not to assess someone? On what basis would it refer the person on? Surely that assumes that some assessment has already taken place.
We know the reason for the amendment, because Mr McMahon was explicit about what he meant at stage 2: the Catholic adoption agencies want to be able to turn away gay couples and unmarried couples without properly assessing their ability to be good parents. An assessment will be performed, but it will be no more than an assessment of whether the couple are unmarried or gay. It will not assess whether the couple can provide a child with a loving family home. Current practice runs counter to the amendment, in that an assessment of sorts would have to be done.
In the end, referring prospective parents elsewhere is simply discrimination once removed. Would the Parliament support the amendment if it was targeted at Catholic couples, Muslim couples, black couples or women? It would not. Neither, then, should it pander to the discrimination against unmarried or gay couples.
I am glad to support Michael McMahon's amendment, which is wise and far-sighted and should be supported by the Parliament. He raises an issue that I raised with the minister during the stage 1 debate. In response to my question, the minister said that it was not necessary for the bill to state explicitly that faith-based adoption agencies would not be compelled to help same-sex couples to adopt. I believe as a matter of conviction that it is right that we should not put people in positions in which they are expected to act against their religious faith or principles, whether their religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other. It is wrong to think that we are talking only about Catholic-based agencies. We are dealing with a much bigger issue than that.
I made it clear that, although I welcomed the minister's reassurance, it was desirable that this sensitive matter should be clarified in the bill. As Margaret Smith rightly said, other legislation could give rise to legal actions against faith-based agencies. The amendment would send a clear signal to faith-based agencies that their valued work can continue unhindered in a way that is acceptable to everybody concerned.
Before I call Fiona Hyslop, I use my power under rule 9.8.4A to extend the debate on the next group by 20 minutes, which must conclude by one hour and 25 minutes after the time that proceedings began.
The SNP values the role that faith-based agencies play in adoption, and the Education Committee was extremely impressed at stage 1 by their contribution. All parties—including Lord James, Elaine Murray, Kenneth Macintosh and others—agreed that the bill will not prevent faith-based agencies from referring people on. Why would we include in the bill something that is not necessary? We have an assurance from the minister that the faith-based agencies will continue to be able to refer people on. It is right for them to be able to refer on those people whom they cannot help.
There is another argument about the philosophy and the approach of the bill, which puts the rights of the child first. Indeed, the only rights in the bill are the rights of children. That reflects the history of children's policy and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which put the rights of children first. To put the rights of adoption agencies or the rights of adoptees—
Will the member take an intervention?
May I take an intervention, Presiding Officer?
Very briefly, minister.
If I could perhaps address the point about the national care standards and why Michael McMahon thinks it is important for the matter to be covered in the bill, there is a slight difference of emphasis, because he is addressing some of the concerns that adoption agencies might not be able to—
Minister, it is an intervention.
Sorry.
I can give Fiona Hyslop only two minutes.
Okay.
Carry on, Ms Hyslop.
I know that there is a difference of opinion within the Executive, but the minister should not use the Opposition to make that point.
It is important that the bill does not give rights to adoption agencies or adoptees. Such rights would be superfluous, because the rights of children are paramount.
Michael McMahon used the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Act 2002 to justify his amendment, but that reveals the flaw in his argument. We want faith-based agencies to be able to refer people on and there is nothing in the bill to prevent that. On those grounds, I reject amendment 86.
I speak strongly against amendment 86. If we insert the provision that it proposes into the bill, we will give a green light to adoption agencies to discriminate. The main priority of any adoption agency, faith-based or otherwise, should be the good of the children with whom they are dealing. If we give any agency the right to discriminate, that will not be the case.
If the argument against amendment 86 is that it is unnecessary because the matter is already covered in guidance, is the member happy with the guidance containing the exemption that the amendment suggests?
No, I am not happy with the guidance. Two wrongs do not make a right. The anti-discrimination legislation that will come into force next year will take care of that and will probably make the provision that amendment 86 would insert obsolete anyway. If any organisation feels that for ethical or moral reasons it cannot conduct its business within the law, it should not be in that business. I urge anybody who cares about children and equal opportunities to oppose amendment 86.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton told us that amendment 86 is wise and far-sighted, but it is exactly the opposite. If some adoption agencies are going to continue to discriminate, it is a good idea that they refer people on to an agency that will not discriminate. It is a good idea to have that rule. However, it is a bad idea for us to pass an amendment to put that in the bill because, as Kate Maclean says, that will be taken as our sanctioning and explicitly approving of such discrimination in law.
We can have an argument about whether such discrimination is acceptable or unacceptable. What surprises me most is that it was Michael McMahon who lodged amendment 86, given that his party wants Westminster to deal with discrimination issues for us. His party is dealing with such issues at Westminster through legislation and policy.
It strikes me as short-sighted and unwise for members to agree to an amendment that cuts across the anti-discrimination work that is being done, whether they are in the party that is progressing that work or an Opposition party. I ask members not to support amendment 86, not to give discrimination an explicit endorsement and not to cut across the future work on equality that will be done elsewhere.
Fiona Hyslop highlighted the cross-party support for the position taken at stage 1 that there is no need to insert in the bill the provision that amendment 86 proposes, given that faith-based agencies will be able to continue to operate in the way that they do at present. At stage 1, it was suggested that there was such a legal opt-out in the equivalent legislation in England and Wales, but that is not the case. Neither the Adoption and Children Act 2002 nor the associated subordinate legislation contains any such opt-out. No one has presented evidence to suggest that faith-based adoption agencies in England and Wales have any difficulty operating within that legislative framework, so I do not see why they would have any difficulty working under the proposed Scottish framework. There is no need for amendment 86 to protect the position of faith-based organisations.
We have to address the issue of discrimination. The guiding principles of the Parliament require us to recognise the need to promote equal opportunities for all. If we want to be true to our responsibilities, we must reject amendment 86. Should we put in the bill a provision that says that it is okay to discriminate? Margaret Smith referred to the grounds on which it would be possible to assess a person as a prospective adopter. It would not be acceptable to discriminate on the grounds of race or disability—that would cause an uproar—but, apparently, it is okay to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation. The proposed provision says, in effect, that the judgment of an adoption agency about who is suitable to adopt can be made on grounds that have nothing to do with whether they would provide a secure, safe and loving home for a child.
The bill will not prevent faith-based adoption agencies from continuing to operate according to their own faith-based criteria, but we should not put in the bill a provision that gives them a specific right to discriminate.
In the discussion on an earlier amendment from my colleague Paul Martin, we were told how important it was that we set the right tone in legislation and that we send out the right messages. That is true, and we should think about that carefully when we vote on amendment 86 and as the day progresses. In all the earlier discussions at stages 1 and 2, we united around the clear message that what mattered was Scotland's children and that what was best for them would be at the heart of our consideration of the bill.
In the light of earlier debates and decisions, we are in danger of sending out a message that, rather than acting in the best interests of all Scotland's children and considering all the evidence and the measured discussions that there have been over many years, at the last minute we are willing to bow to just one voice, one view and one constituency of opinion. That is the wrong message to send out, and we should remind ourselves what the bill is about.
Faith-based adoption agencies are terribly important, which is why the Education Committee considered the matter carefully and why ministers have given firm assurances. That is the right way to deal with the matter. I urge colleagues to reject amendment 86.
The key issue is how adoption agencies decide not to assess a person as a prospective adopter. Can adoption agencies just turn away anyone whom they want to turn away? Amendment 86 refers clearly, in effect, to Catholic adoption agencies. However, such agencies—which I have to say do a fantastic job—are specialist adoption agencies; they do not take everybody. The guidance already allows specialist adoption agencies to refer people who do not meet their criteria to other adoption agencies. What is wrong with that? I am happy with the guidance, which seems perfectly fair, logical and reasonable. There is no legal doubt about it.
Is guidance legally enforceable?
Let us not dance on the head of a pin. The guidance is clear. We are talking about enshrining in the law of the land the ability to discriminate, which is completely wrong. If we agree to amendment 86, we will, as many of Karen Gillon's colleagues have said, enshrine discrimination in law, and I will be ashamed of her if she supports it. As others have rightly said, we must not pander to prejudice, but consider the interests of our children first and foremost.
Hugh Henry has asked whether he can speak and, given that he will not be the minister summing up, and that it is clear that members are concerned about this issue and wish to have as much dialogue on it as possible, I will call him after Ken Macintosh.
I am uneasy about some of the debate that we have had about amendment 86. I remind members that the bill is not a gay rights bill or a bill about married or unmarried parents, but a children and families bill. I say without hesitation that I will reject some of Roseanna Cunningham's later amendments, because I regard them as anti-gay.
It is clear that some members also see amendment 86 as discriminatory, which is unfortunate, to say the least. I for one would not vote for something that I saw as discriminatory. It is interesting—and, I hope, reassuring—to note Margaret Smith's comment that not only do we already have strong anti-discrimination legislation in this country, but further measures to reinforce the law are being pursued at Westminster. In other words, the provision proposed in amendment 86 will not be able to be used to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of their sexuality or marital status. On the contrary, the provision is worded in positive rather than negative language. It does not say what an adoption agency cannot do, but what it should do to assist anyone who comes forward as a potential adopter.
Does anyone here seriously question the excellent work carried out by faith-based adoption agencies? As my colleague Wendy Alexander pointed out at stage 2, we do not have enough voluntary sector adoption agencies as it is.
I will finish by drawing parallels. I regard faith-based adoption agencies in a similar way to how I regard denominational schools. It is important for the huge number of people in this country for whom faith is core to their values and upbringing that they have access to an adoption agency that reflects that faith. A parallel approach—this reflects my support for amendment 86—is positive action rather than positive discrimination. The amendment does not discriminate against anyone, but positively supports those who value their religious faith.
I call Hugh Henry, who will be followed by Karen Gillon.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. What precedent exists for calling a second minister to speak at such a stage? It is understandable that special treatment should be given to a minister who is leading on a bill for the Executive, but another minister should be treated in exactly the same way as an ordinary member is treated. I seek an assurance that if Hugh Henry is called, all members of other parties who seek to speak in such debates will be treated in the same way.
I hope that I treat members fairly. I decided to call Hugh Henry as an ordinary member, which is why I made my announcement.
As Robert Brown said, the Executive is neutral on the issue. However, I hope that I can clarify several matters that have been raised. [Interruption.] I will attempt to do so as an ordinary member. Indeed, I have the right to do so.
It has been suggested that the national care standards should not apply. Some people want them to be abolished. However, we must be clear that the debate is not about abolishing the national care standards—they will still exist and will ensure that what amendment 86 suggests should be done will be done. A slight difference is involved, however, with respect to the duty to refer people who cannot be assessed to another adoption agency. Michael McMahon has suggested that we should go further than the standards in saying that we should ensure that a person shall be referred to another agency. That addresses the point that Patrick Harvie made about it being right to refer people on.
I have a serious point to make. Does the minister see the amendment having any unintended consequences, not in relation to faith-based agencies but in relation to local authorities, which are defined as adoption agencies?
I do not see any unintended consequences. Robert Brown gave assurances on the consequences at stage 2. Michael McMahon seeks to clarify matters and to ensure that people will be referred to another agency—I refer to the point that Patrick Harvie made. The opportunity for an agency to discriminate will be avoided. The question whether discrimination had occurred would depend on the reasons for the referral.
The debate is developing into a debate on the rights of adults as opposed to the rights of children, but nobody in Scotland has the right to adopt a child.
Like Ken Macintosh, I would not support any form of institutionalised discrimination, but respect cuts both ways. I respect the rights and views of faith-based adoption agencies, including their right to have their views heard in this chamber and to be heard and respected in Scotland. The difficulty with debates such as this one is that respect seems to go in only one direction.
I will support Michael McMahon's amendment 86, because it is right that we should respect faith-based organisations, which make an important contribution to Scotland's public life. It is also right that we should respect the right of people in the gay community and people from every part of society to seek to adopt. That said, no person has the right to adopt.
Peter Peacock and I made it clear to the Education Committee and the Parliament that the Scottish ministers want faith-based adoption agencies to continue their work, which is a valuable additional service to the services that local authorities and others offer. Indeed, I want faith-based adoption agencies to find more adoptive parents, to provide services to a range of adults and children, and to appeal to their faith-based communities to secure more adoptive parents who can meet all the stringent requirements of the adoption process and can give good homes to children who need them. That is the central point that we should bear in mind.
Ministers have consistently made it clear that nothing in the bill will alter the position or practices of Roman Catholic adoption agencies. In practice, if an adoption agency thinks that it is unable to assist a child or prospective adopter, it should refer them to another adoption agency that could provide the necessary service and support. That is the current practice of adoption agencies.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will continue.
Standard 20 of the national care standards for adoption agencies includes a power to refer people who cannot be assessed to another agency, so the amendment will make no difference to what happens in practice. I hope that the Roman Catholic adoption agencies will be reassured by the reassurances that have been given at stage 2 and today on that matter.
I will deal briefly with the Westminster equalities legislation, which has been mentioned and is an important backdrop for information. As members are aware, consultation is being carried out on regulations on discriminatory practice in the supply of goods and services under that legislation. The Parliament will want to consider whether including the proposed provision in the bill would be helpful. It would not affect what may happen at Westminster. Equalities legislation is UK legislation, and agencies will be required to comply with it and regulations that are made under it. Peter Peacock and officials have engaged with the UK Government on how agencies will be affected. However, I say again that we do not intend to affect the practices of the Roman Catholic adoption agencies; rather, we want them to continue to do their good work.
The matter must be decided by members: as has been said, the Executive has taken a neutral stance. However, that background information will help members in putting matters in context as they make a decision on amendment 86.
I will press amendment 86.
It has been made clear to me that faith-based adoption agencies want to operate within the provisions of the bill, but they fear that they will not be able to do so unless they are given the legislative protection that they need. Despite the minister's assurances, they are not reassured that that will be the case.
As Elaine Murray and other members have said, the agencies currently refer people on, and they have been advised that they can continue to do so. If they are referring people, they cannot be being discriminatory, therefore all the arguments about inclusion of the provision in the bill being discriminatory cannot be justified. There is no logic in such an argument. Indeed, the Scotland Act 1998 seeks to protect religious beliefs and compels us to ensure that that is done. Protecting faith-based agencies is not pandering to discrimination and prejudice, but not protecting them could result in prejudicial action being taken against a religious group.
I said that the legislative framework that the bill proposes already exists in England and Wales, and there is no evidence that faith-based organisations there have any problems operating under it. Does the member have any evidence of problems for organisations that are working under that framework in England and Wales?
I have been told by the faith-based adoption agencies that they are concerned about what might happen. That is why the amendment was lodged.
I want to respond to what Fiona Hyslop said and to refer to comments that she made at stage 2. I have not used the word "rights". The issue is not that someone's rights will be taken away or that rights will be given; the issue is protection for agencies so that they can operate within the law.
The fear of the faith-based adoption agencies that they will be forced out of business has been confirmed by what members have said. It is clear that some people want faith-based adoption agencies to operate outwith the criteria that they set and to be told by the Parliament how they will operate, despite their religious beliefs and the ethos under which they are delivering a first-class service.
If amendment 86 creates any difficulties, I cannot understand how we can solve them by dealing with matters in guidance or regulations. There is no logic in saying that it is all right to deal with such things in regulations rather than in the legislation. I do not follow how anyone can believe that providing protection to one group for the delivery of a service without taking away anyone's entitlement must be discriminatory and will diminish the service that is being provided.
The reality is that faith-based adoption agencies provide a high-level service. I cannot believe that the Parliament would wish to do anything that would take them out of the sector in which they operate and deliver that high standard of service. I therefore ask members to support amendment 86.
The question is, that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Abstentions
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 58, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 86 disagreed to.
Section 16—Home visits
I am using my power under rule 9.8.4A of the standing orders to extend the debate by a further 10 minutes. The debate on group 5 must be concluded by one hour and 35 minutes after the time that proceedings began.
Group 5 is on the location of the residence of applicants to adopt. Amendment 87, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 88.
Amendment 87 relates to adoption under Scots law when the applicant does not have a home in Scotland. Under the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, people who are domiciled in Scotland but who are living in another country are eligible to adopt under Scots law; however, the act is silent on which local authority should be given notice of an application by the prospective adopter and which local authority must see the child in the home of the prospective adopter.
At stage 2, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton lodged an amendment to specify that the relevant local authority would be the one that was chosen by the applicant and approved by a court. He withdrew the amendment, however, after I assured him that we would address the matter at stage 3. It was an absolutely valid point that he raised. It seems to me that it is not necessary to require a court to approve the local authority. That would be overly bureaucratic and would require overseas applicants to face additional, unnecessary hurdles that Scottish-based applicants are not required to face.
Amendment 87 places the duty on the local authority in whose area the applicant has a home. If the applicant does not have a home in Scotland, it places the duty on the local authority that the applicant has notified. I think that that is a reasonable solution. When the applicant does not have a home in Scotland, it is probable that they will choose a local authority with which they have some connection—perhaps where they lived last or where the child lived in Scotland. I do not think that the approach will result in certain local authorities being deluged by such notifications, as this type of case is very rare. More than that, the consistent approach to the assessment of prospective adopters throughout Scotland should mean that no particular advantage would be gained by notifying one local authority rather than another.
This is a small part of the bill dealing with a situation that will not arise very often; nevertheless, it is important that we get the provisions right. It is a child protection issue, and we should not allow technical issues to prevent adoption by persons overseas under the supportive structure of Scots law that the bill would put in place. I ask members to support amendment 87, and I pay tribute to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for raising the issue in the first instance.
I move amendment 87.
I will be brief. I thank the minister for these amendments, which emphasise the fact that adoption by people who live overseas will be readily achievable in practice, where that is appropriate. The amendments also put in place mechanisms to ensure home visits that are comparable to those that are received by prospective adopters who live in this country, which is a necessary safeguard.
Amendment 87 agreed to.
Section 18—Notification to local authority of adoption application
Amendment 88 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 24—Duty to give notice where child looked after by other local authority
Amendment 89 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 27—Return of child placed for adoption by adoption agency
Amendments 90 to 92 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 28—Looked after children: adoption not proceeding
Amendment 93 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 31—Adoption by certain couples
Group 6 is on adoption by same-sex couples. Amendment 94, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, is grouped with amendments 95 to 98.
I echo what Karen Gillon said—that there is no such thing as an absolute right to adopt for anyone, no matter what their circumstances are. Many heterosexual couples and single people are turned down for a wide variety of reasons. I presume that, if the bill is passed unamended, many same-sex couples will also be refused, for a wide variety of reasons.
Much of the debate that has raged over the past week has been based on the premise that this is something to do with gay rights. It is not. I do not believe that it has anything to do with gay rights. It is about what is in the best interests of the children—although, clearly, there is a difference of opinion as to what that might be. Is that difference of opinion not to be reflected in the chamber? The truth is that including same-sex couples in the category of those who can apply to adopt gives many people serious cause for concern. Indeed, if the results of the Executive's consultation exercise are an accurate reflection of the view in the country, that must include a majority of Scots.
I share those concerns, and I said so during the stage 1 debate on 13 September. I know that that came as something of a shock to people, as I do not suppose that I was ever in the category of the usual suspects. However, because I did not feel that what the bill proposed was right, I had a choice to make. I could have said nothing. Some people have suggested that that is what I should have done. That would certainly have been the easy way out. However, I believe that families matter. It is society's networks of families that are its strength—I assume that that is a given. The traditional family pattern is still what prevails throughout society in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It is under stress, to be sure, but it still provides the basis for the upbringing of the vast majority of children, and society is the poorer when it breaks down, as we frequently debate in the chamber under different headings.
I do not think that any of us would disagree with the member's assertion that we should protect the great majority of children; however, we should also protect the minority. Her amendments do not prevent children from being brought up by same-sex parents, as has always been the case—there have always been same-sex parents—but they remove the legal protection of both parents when the child has been adopted. Why is that the right way in which to protect that minority?
The amendments do not remove any existing protection; they simply reinstate the current scenario, to which I understand that the member objects.
In the early stages of the bill, the Education Committee noted that there was little evidence, one way or the other, in respect of same-sex adoption because of the lack of available research. It took that to mean that there should be no bar on same-sex adoption. I take it to mean that we should tread cautiously. Frankly, I feel reinforced in that view when even the Institute for Public Policy Research—not known for its right-wing approach on issues—has recently made it clear that all the evidence shows that
"children who grow up in an ‘intact, two-parent family' with both biological parents do better on a wide range of outcomes"
than those who do not. A Child Trends research brief from 2002, which may be where some of the IPPR's information comes from, summarises the position as follows:
"research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."
Those may be challenging assertions for some people but, frankly, if that is where the evidence takes us, I have to ask the question: do not children who are placed for adoption have the same right as those who have not lost their parents to have the chance to be taken into a family that accords with the traditional form?
I am slightly confused by the logic of Roseanna Cunningham's argument, which appears to be that even if parents abuse their child or cannot cope with bringing up their child because they have drugs problems, they should stay with that child because they are the biological parents, and the child should not be taken away to be adopted by parents who would be safer.
I say with the greatest respect to Iain Smith that that is not the logic of my argument. He is arguing on the basis of false comparisons. We can all trade worst-case scenarios. I am trying to argue for the best case.
We already know that age limits apply to adoption and fostering. Perhaps that is age discrimination, but I presume that we set those limits on the basis of what we believe to be in the child's best interests. That is all that I am concerned about.
The language that I have used is deliberate, because I do not believe that people must believe in God to be persuaded by hundreds of thousands of years of human biology. We are what we are. I am heartened by the many messages of support that I have received. I note from The Scotsman yesterday that that includes support from no less than Professor John Haldane.
Who is he?
My colleague Linda Fabiani says, "Who is he?" She knows perfectly well who he is.
I do not expect everyone to agree with what I have said; I am simply doing what I believe to be the right thing.
I move amendment 94.
I wish to call a considerable number of back benchers but I may not be able to call them all. Each speaker has a tight two minutes.
I speak against Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 94 to 98. Like many members, I have thought long and hard about the issue. It is important to set the discussion in context. Karen Gillon was right to say that absolutely no one—whether heterosexual or homosexual—has an automatic right to adopt. Adoption—never mind fostering—is not decided overnight. A comprehensive and detailed assessment is made of a family's suitability in the context of the child's interests. The courts decide every case on the basis of what is in the best interests of the child, not the adopter.
That is the nub of the matter. Children are of paramount importance in the debate. We all acknowledge that children need stable and loving families. Without question, they deserve the best possible start in life. It is worth reflecting on the known outcomes for children who live in care, no matter how good that care is. Those children have lower educational achievements and poorer health than children of the same age and they are more likely to have experience of the criminal justice system. Children of all ages and stages of development need love and support. Knowing all that, I find it difficult to think that anyone honestly believes that creating inappropriate barriers to adoption is right.
Somebody who came to the debate cold would be forgiven for thinking that we were considering for the first time giving homosexual people the right to adopt. Fiona Hyslop is right—the bill is entirely about the rights of children and not those of anybody else. However, homosexual people have been able to adopt since the 1930s—almost 80 years ago—so that is nothing new. A large number of same-sex couples are parents and many have adopted, but in such cases, only one person is legally recognised as the parent. The bill will allow both parents to be so recognised.
I have examined the bill's sections again and again. They do no more or less than afford both parents the right to be recognised as parents. They do not confer new rights to adopt, diminish the fact that the child's interests are of paramount importance or replace the detailed and comprehensive assessment of a family's suitability.
You should finish now.
I urge the Parliament not to prevent any child from having the best possible start in life and I urge members to reject the amendments.
I oppose the amendments in Roseanna Cunningham's name, which take us to the question that many have asked: what is the bill all about? It is about what is in the child's best interests and about providing children—many of whom are in care—with a safe, stable and loving family home. Set against that background, the amendments not only discriminate against gay couples, but are illogical and in children's worst interests.
The right of gay couples to adopt jointly is supported by the Parliament's Education Committee, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, the Church of Scotland, Engender, children's charities such as Barnardo's, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups, the Equal Opportunities Commission and Unison. Some seek to portray the issue as being about the right of gay people to adopt. That might be the case if gay people had never been able to adopt but, as we have heard, that is not the case. The bill will simply extend to people the right to come forward as prospective parents as couples rather than individuals. The bill aims to expand the pool of prospective parents and to give children greater stability.
Today, I speak primarily as a mother of five children. I say on the record that I therefore have no intention whatever of using the bill myself.
Since the 1930s, the law has allowed single, unmarried and gay people to adopt children. In fact, couples are often assessed together, but only one partner can assume legal rights. People who put themselves forward to be adoptive parents know that they will be vetted strenuously—that is right—yet gay and single people have managed to adopt and no evidence suggests that they are anything other than loving parents.
The bill will help to clarify the situation so that a child can be adopted by both partners, unlike at present, when only one partner can become the legal adoptive parent. What happens when a parent dies or when a couple split up? Why add more trauma to a difficult time for a child by requiring the other partner to go to law to try to become a legal parent? Why continue to have households in which the state perpetuates unequal legal relationships between parents and their children?
You must close.
I hope that the Parliament will defeat the amendments overwhelmingly and send a clear message to Scotland's children that their welfare is our foremost concern. We want them to live in happy, stable and loving family homes in a tolerant and modern country in which discrimination of all kinds is tackled and defeated.
The Scottish National Party rejects the amendments in Roseanna Cunningham's name and will vote against them, because they do not reflect the SNP's view. The debate must be about children's rights, not about adults' values. As Karen Gillon said, the debate is in danger of becoming a debate about values and about what adults think of other adults, when it should be about what is in the child's best interests.
I agree with Paul Martin, because I think that enduring family relationships and stable family units provide the best way to ensure continuing stability for children. That is right, but we did not need Paul Martin's amendment. We acknowledge that couples can provide an enduring family relationship. As Margaret Smith said, we must ensure legal stability if one member of a couple dies, so that children who are affected have a parent who can continue the enduring family relationship and the family unit. Precisely for the reasons that Paul Martin gave, we must ensure that same-sex couples can adopt as couples and not just as individuals.
We must reflect on the fact that we live in a world in which people are not queueing to adopt or to foster. People who wish to adopt or foster are valuable individuals and we must encourage, in a fair way, more people to adopt or foster.
I want a Scotland in which children's rights are paramount. I do not want to hear about the old arguments and the old ways of Scotland. I want a new, modern and progressive Scotland. Sometimes, it is easy to be popular and more difficult to be right. Let us be right.
What I will say is exactly what I said when I took the Children (Scotland) Bill through the House of Commons: the child's interests must be paramount. Roseanna Cunningham's amendments are far too discriminatory. I will give just one example. In a close-knit family, if the father and mother were killed in a tragedy or a car smash, would it be right or appropriate to discriminate against the devoted uncle who happened to have a gay partner? It would not be, because the uncle and his partner might be the best people to act in place of the parents.
A blanket discriminatory ban is not in keeping with the spirit of the 21st century. No legislative bar should prevent social work professionals on the ground and experts in court from allowing the best and most suitable adoptions to proceed. I personally oppose the amendments.
I am pleased that members from across the political spectrum are speaking against the amendments and labelling the amendments clearly as prejudiced. Prejudice is wrong not only because it is nasty and hurtful. It is wrong to prejudge same-sex couples as inadequate parents not only because it insults them, but because it removes the possibility of making the right decision in the circumstances when they are appropriate and worthy couples to be adoptive parents. The amendments are wrong in principle and in practice.
To read some of what has been said in correspondence that we have received and the coverage of the subject in the media, one might almost imagine that a gang of adoption agencies was going round knocking on the doors of every same-sex couple and billeting children with them at random. We are talking about making careful decisions about every couple and every applicant on their own terms. To allow joint adoption so that a person may become an adoptive parent with their partner is absolutely logical.
Some of the other nonsense that we heard in the media included phrases such as "against nature's design". That is obviously a religious argument and if one wants to make such an argument, one is perfectly entitled to, but nature does not have a design. In nature, sexual diversity is the norm everywhere—in all species, in all human societies at all times. Same-sex relationships have always existed; some same-sex couples have always been parents. We will do completely the wrong thing today if the chamber does not comprehensively reject the introduction of prejudice into the bill.
I, too, oppose the amendments in Roseanna Cunningham's name. The bill refers to the concept of enduring family relationships in numerous places and we have discussed that already. Before Roseanna Cunningham moved her amendments, she said that families matter. It is true that families matter, but they come in all shapes and sizes. As we pass the bill today, we have to recognise the Scotland of 2006 and not the Scotland of 1978, which was the last time that we had a major reform of our adoption law.
As other people have said, it is not the case, that single people cannot adopt; the difference is that they cannot adopt as part of a couple. If we are serious about giving young people the best opportunity in life to experience a stable family environment, it is important that people who live as a couple in a long-term relationship and who can provide that enduring family relationship are able to adopt as a couple. It should not be, as it is at the moment, that only one partner adopts and the other is just an added-on extra. That is the crux of the debate today—it is about providing young people with the best possible start and stable families. If that is what we want to achieve, we need to reject the amendments in Roseanna Cunningham's name.
At this stage, I advise members that I am using my power under rule 9.8.4A of the standing orders to extend the debate on group 6 by half an hour. The debate requires to be concluded by 11.39 to incorporate the vote before question time.
I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on having the courage to stand up and say what she said today. We are debating a serious issue; we are talking about the future of our children and our society. It is right that there should be balance in the arguments that are presented in a place such as this. I believe firmly in her comments. In the light of the problems that we face in youth justice today, there is considered opinion that the best way to bring up children is in a heterosexual relationship. It is important that there is both a father and a mother influence and from that view I will not be dissuaded.
Patrick Harvie talked about prejudice, but the nastiness in the e-mails that I have received has been the opinion that everybody who is in favour of Roseanna Cunningham's amendments is some kind of religious bigot. I point out that in a chamber such as ours, religions of all persuasions have a place and should not be swept under the carpet or be something that is not to be spoken about.
I will vote in support of Roseanna Cunningham's amendments. Once again, I congratulate her on her courage in coming forward with her words and her amendments.
Although I recognise that it has probably taken a lot of courage for Roseanna Cunningham to lodge her amendments, I totally disagree with them. As others said, the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act 1930 allowed single people to adopt whether or not they were in unmarried relationships and whatever their sexuality. Theoretically, those single adoptive parents could be involved in serial or multiple relationships with others. The bill extends the adoption process to include unmarried couples who are able to offer a child a stable, loving home with two people to love, support and continue to support them for the rest of their lives.
Most children who are adopted are not babies; they have come from difficult circumstances, they might suffer from disability, they might be vulnerable or they might have undergone terrific trauma. The opportunity to be involved in a caring, loving family where two people will love, support and protect a child's interests is a hell of an improvement for many of those children and might be something that they have never known. The fact that the adoptive parents might be an unmarried or a homosexual couple is far less important than the love and support that they are able to offer those children.
I am saddened that we have to consider amendments 94 to 98, because the issues that they raise were thoroughly aired at stage 1 and roundly rejected by the Parliament when it approved the general principles of the bill.
It is important to state that the bill will not create a right for anyone to adopt; it removes certain restrictions on who can apply to jointly adopt a child. Every applicant to adopt will be required to go through the same stringent checks on their suitability, whether they are married, unmarried, a same-sex couple, in a civil partnership or a single person.
The ability of applicants to provide a safe, secure and loving home and to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child should and will be the determining factor of whether they can adopt. The bill is about the right of the child to have its life chances significantly enhanced and not about the rights of potential adopters.
As has been said, there is nothing in the present law that prevents a child from being adopted by a gay man or a lesbian in a long-term relationship. However, the current law prevents those partners adopting jointly and taking on jointly the responsibilities and rights of being adoptive parents, even if they already share those duties. The argument is about improving the rights of the adopted child in such circumstances. There might be problems if for some reason the adoptive parent is unavailable and his or her partner is unable to exercise parental responsibilities and rights. What happens if the adoptive parent dies? Is the child then to be taken away from the partner whom the child considers to be just as much his or her parent as the adoptive parent was?
That situation was summed up by Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, Kathleen Marshall, in her stage 1 evidence to the committee. She said that section 31 would help to clarify the existing situation as both partners would obtain legal status as adoptive parents. As both partners would have a legal relationship with the child, the child would benefit from the greater stability that that would bring and an enhanced level of security would result, as formal legal ties would exist between the child and both adults.
Once again, it is about the child and not the parents. Surely, if we believe that the rights of the child are paramount, it supersedes any other consideration. Any course other than to reject Roseanna Cunningham's amendments is just blind prejudice.
I decided to contribute today because of my concern about some of the letters and e-mails that I have received over the past week from people on both sides of the argument. They generally place the wrong emphasis on the issue. Indeed, in an awful lot of cases, they show no understanding of the current law. Some express views that might reflect their creed or morality and others feel strongly that we are dealing with an equalities issue. However, with the exception of a very few of the missives that I received, the main point has been missed, as other speakers mentioned. We are talking about children or young people who, for whatever reason, are not fortunate enough to live in a home that is neither institutional nor temporary and who may have to share attention and care with many others, even at the time in their lives when they most need that bit of extra individual attention. That happens despite the best efforts of those who care for young people in such circumstances—carers are drawn from all parts of society and walks of life and have varying beliefs and orientations, but their common ground in the majority of cases is commitment to those for whom they care.
If passed, amendments 94 to 98 would maintain the status quo instead of allowing a child to have two legal parents as part of a stable family relationship. As we heard from Iain Smith, two parents would offer a potential safeguard against any future disruption in the life of a child who might have suffered disruption enough.
I urge members to vote against the amendments, which I believe are clearly opposed to the best interests of the child.
I wish to address not so much the substance of Roseanna Cunningham's amendments but the atmosphere of this morning's debate in the chamber and the wider debate that has taken place over the past week.
Whatever we think of these amendments, there is no doubt that Roseanna Cunningham has raised genuine concerns that are shared by many people. Many believe that children need male and female role models and they are concerned that adoption by same-sex couples excludes such a possibility and is simply not in children's best interests.
People who express such views are not homophobes, extremists or—as some suggest—religious nutters. They have genuine concerns that should not be dismissed with name calling and abuse. The point is that although such views might well be unpopular in the chamber, they reflect wider concerns throughout Scotland. We in the Parliament should take seriously and reflect on the views of people outside the chamber, even if we disagree with and subsequently dismiss them.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I do not have time.
I believe that we all want to live in a liberal and tolerant society; indeed, we have heard as much from different parts of the chamber. However, one old definition of a liberal is someone who allows all opinions to be heard, except those with which he disagrees. We are in danger of falling into that trap in this debate. The Parliament needs to be a bigger and better place than that and I commend Roseanna Cunningham for at least giving us the opportunity to debate these issues.
I oppose this group of amendments. We are in danger of losing sight of the fact that, through the various stages of the bill, the principle that guided the Education Committee's work was the child's best interests. As many members have pointed out, under current legislation, a single person can already adopt a child. I cannot emphasise enough the point that, in agreeing to amendments 97 and 98, we will leave children in a vulnerable position, because there will be no arrangements to deal with them if, for example, a partner in a same-sex relationship dies. The bill takes the right approach and moves us forward.
The mainstay of the bill should be the provision of a loving and secure environment for children. The sexuality of and the nature of the relationship of those who adopt does not matter, as long as they can provide children with security and love. The provisions were unanimously accepted in the committee's stage 1 report and have been supported by many organisations, including BAAF Scotland and, as members have pointed out, various children's organisations.
If they are agreed to, these unhelpful amendments will introduce discriminatory provisions into the legislation. We should not be having a debate on whether people are being prejudiced against others. Instead, we should be having an open debate on how we can give these children the right future under the right circumstances. As members have pointed out, everyone who wants to adopt will be assessed to find out whether they are the right person. That should be all that is required.
I oppose amendment 94, not because it is discriminatory per se but because it is not in the child's best interests and does not meet the challenge that we face.
I have always believed that the driving force behind the bill is to deal with the problem that too many of Scotland's children are in care and have no permanence or love in their lives. As step-parents and foster parents know, adopting or taking on other people's children is a huge commitment. I wish that it would happen, but the idea that huge numbers of lesbian and gay couples—or, indeed, other couples—will come forward to adopt because of the bill is simply a fallacy.
Couples are much more likely to have the resources and stamina that are required to take a child into a family. We should also remember that, in certain cases, more than one child might need to be adopted. However, the bill does not create any rights. Instead, it extends the eligibility of those who are suitable to adopt children to include unmarried and same-sex couples. Sexual orientation should not be a barrier to adoption and any decision must be based on the child's best interests.
Anyone who intends to adopt already undergoes a rigorous test that includes finding out who the role models are, what the extended family is like, and the durability of their relationship. If any same-sex or unmarried couples covered by the bill's provisions do not pass the existing test, they will not be allowed to adopt. I do not think that we are doing very much other than—rightly—extending eligibility. Such a move is in the interests of the 30,000 children who are in care and for whom we have a duty to provide a range of options.
I find myself opposing amendment 94 but in favour of amendment 96 which, after all, is in line with the principle of the stability of the family unit that was set out in amendment 84, in the name of Paul Martin, which the Parliament agreed to earlier. People who are married or who have entered into a civil partnership have made a legally binding commitment to one another, and I respect that. People who adopt a child are not acting as befrienders or foster carers. Instead, in becoming the child's parents, they are entering into legally binding commitments with the child. Why should we have adoption legislation in this country that allows people who are not prepared to make a legally binding commitment to each other to make a legally binding commitment to a child? That does not seem to be a rational way of promoting the stable family values that should lie behind any decision to allow a couple to adopt.
I urge members to vote against amendment 94 but to vote for amendment 96.
This has been a very good debate on one of the central issues that arose during the bill's consideration but which, I must point out, is not the bill's central purpose.
I have known Roseanna Cunningham for a number of years and profoundly respect her abilities, but I hope that she accepts that a number of members in the chamber profoundly disagree with her views. That said, she has done us a service in allowing us to debate the issue once again and, I hope, to reach some result. At the end of the day, the chamber is the premier forum for parliamentary debate and it is right that the issues should be raised here.
Amendments 94 to 98 seek to prevent same-sex couples from being eligible to adopt. However, they do not remove the possibility of individual homosexual and lesbian people applying to adopt, which can still happen under section 32. Although some of the amendments seek to narrow that provision, they do not change it. Paradoxically, if amendment 94 and the other amendments in the group were passed, people who had committed themselves to civil partnerships or who were in enduring relationships would be unable to adopt, whereas single people, people who perhaps might hide their situation or people who were in more incidental relationships would still be able to. Even the terms of these amendments contain an oddity.
Roseanna Cunningham's argument is very clear. It has nothing to do with testing the stability of relationships, nothing to do with finding out whether a relationship is enduring, nothing to do with the personal suitability of prospective adopters and nothing to do with what is in the child's best interests. It is all about dealing with a situation in which the proposed adopters are gay. The preference underlying the amendments is that rather than allowing children to be adopted by gay couples who are in a certified civil partnership, who have lived together faithfully for a number of years and who have decided to go through the rigorous adoption process—or even allowing them to be adopted by a gay individual—they should languish in residential institutions. As members have pointed out, the big issue behind the bill is to improve the lot of the many children who are born into difficult family situations. If Roseanna Cunningham has any qualms about gay couples adopting, I should point out that the logical consequence of her amendments is that children who live with same-sex couples should be removed from that situation. We have heard no evidence that suggests that there is any shade of support for either proposition.
Same-sex couples already raise adopted children. As a number of members have pointed out, having been assessed as part of a couple, one partner in that couple can adopt a child, while the other partner can apply for more limited parental rights and responsibilities.
The bill is about giving greater rights to children. By allowing such couples to adopt jointly, it will mean that children will have two adults with full parental responsibilities and rights to look after them. I take Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point about the situation in which there is an accident and one parent is killed. The bill will provide more stability and support to children in such a position.
Homosexual and lesbian people already raise children—who are often their own biological children—with the same love and compassion as other parents. We should not discourage people who have given the decision to pursue adoption careful thought and who have gone through a lengthy and rigorous assessment process. After all, there is no magic ingredient to parenting. The skills and temperament that are required to raise a child come from a person's life experience, not from his or her sexual orientation. Children face many challenges as they grow up. Knowing that they have a family who loves and cares for them will be a bedrock for meeting those challenges.
As with all prospective adopters, same-sex prospective adopters will undergo a rigorous assessment process. It is right that not all applicants will be approved, regardless of their background. Many people come forward and some fail. Once they have been approved, prospective adopters must be matched with a child. A range of checks prevents an adoption order from being made when the child does not want to be adopted or when the prospective adopters are not suitable to raise that particular child. Any adoption order must be made by an independent court, on the basis of very full scrutiny and with advice from a curator ad litem who has been appointed specifically to protect the child's best interests.
The amendments raise European convention on human rights issues. Although there is no right to adopt, any provisions that seek to restrict people's ability to adopt fall broadly within the ambit of article 8 of ECHR, which provides a right to respect for private and family life.
In relation to that right, article 14, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds, comes into play. Unless there were objective justification for treating same-sex couples differently, doing so would amount to discrimination that breached the convention.
The central point is that the bill is about children and their rights and welfare. It is also partly about our ability as a society to remove children from a home environment that is profoundly damaging to them and to place them in a home where they will be valued, respected and encouraged and where they will thrive. It will provide a modernised framework for better assessing, supporting and approving or rejecting adoptive parents on grounds that boil down to ensuring that the best interests of the individual child are paramount. That is what inspires the whole bill. It is not about restricting the opportunities for children to be placed in a good home on general grounds, whereby certain types of family are de facto unsuitable. That would be discriminatory and, in modern Scotland, unacceptable. As we have heard, many of Roseanna Cunningham's SNP colleagues are distinctly uncomfortable with the amendments. I urge the Parliament to reject them and to do so overwhelmingly.
When I hear some members applaud my courage, if nothing else, I am sharply reminded of that famous "Yes Minister" sketch in which the politician's courage in pursuing a certain course of action is commended by civil servants who want to get the politician to do something else entirely. In today's debate, I have been told that I have courage by members on both sides of the argument.
At the outset, I said that these amendments were about my view of what is in the best interests of children. I am sorry that quite a lot of the debate—whether inside or outside the chamber—has not been about that. I believe that what I have proposed is in the best interests of children, although I accept that other people have different views. I notice that no one has referred directly to the evidence on what is in the best interests of children, which I quoted earlier.
This morning, I was told that about 60 per cent of adoptions break down. We are talking about situations that are highly unstable even as things stand. Throughout the debate, I have tried to keep my language and tone as calm and rational as possible. Notwithstanding the whispering campaign—or, in the case of Patrick Harvie, not so much a whispering campaign as a shouting campaign—the idea that somehow I am being a puppet for someone else is ridiculous. Anyone who examines my voting record on such matters will realise that that cannot be the case.
I said that some folk had suggested that I should have said nothing but, frankly, that is an extraordinary suggestion to make. First, as I have had occasion to say in connection with other bills, committees are not rubber stamps for Executive legislation, but neither is the Parliament a rubber stamp for committee deliberations. The fact that an issue has been dealt with in committee does not mean that there can be no debate on it in the Parliament as a whole.
Secondly, if the Parliament had had no debate on adoption by same-sex couples, we would have woefully misrepresented the views of voters, which cannot be right.
The member will have noted the minister's reference to the ECHR and his lack of courage in failing to take an intervention on that topic. How many countries in Europe have adopted same-sex adoption practices?
I cannot answer Phil Gallie off the top of my head, but I know that only one or two other countries have done so. I do not know what debates are going on elsewhere.
I was talking about debate in the chamber. All of us need to remember that debate is only debate if there is more than one side of an argument. Many people inside and outside the Parliament have suggested that there should have been no debate about adoption by same-sex couples, but that would have been a ridiculous position in which to have found ourselves.
Thirdly, if we are not allowed to have such debates, that is tantamount to saying that the right of free speech does not apply—or, more to the point, that it applies only in circumstances in which people agree with one another's opinions.
Will the member give way?
I have to finish.
There are arguments for and against adoption by same-sex couples and I have some sympathy with what I have heard from some of the members who will not vote for my amendments. However, as I said at the outset, I was doing what I believed to be right. If I do not have the right to do what I believe to be right, what is the Parliament about?
I will conclude by reading from an e-mail that I received this morning from someone who wrote:
"I have two adopted children in their 20s, still coping with adoption issues. In adoption the interests of the children are paramount. They have to cope with rejection—starting when their chums taunt, ‘That's not your real Mummy and Daddy.' Thank God mine don't also have to cope with their parental sexuality. I am comfortable with same sex legal partnerships—not my issue at all. But, just as adults over 38 are rejected as potential foster parents because the children would struggle with having older parents, so the interests of the child must rule out same-sex parents."
We already discriminate. All that I am saying is that I think that the rights of the children mean that we should not take the step that is proposed in the bill.
The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
While the vote is proceeding, I advise members that, in view of the number of extensions to individual time limits this morning, the Presiding Officers are likely, with the agreement of business managers, to be inclined to invite a motion from the floor this afternoon to extend the overall time available for today's business by 30 minutes, if necessary. That would mean that the debate on whether the bill be passed would start at around 4.30 pm, with decision time at 5.30 pm.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 101, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 94 disagreed to.
Amendment 95 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 98, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 95 disagreed to.
Amendment 96 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 95, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 96 disagreed to.
Section 32—Adoption by one person
Amendments 97 and 98 not moved.
Section 33—Parental etc consent
Group 7 is on parental consent. Amendment 100, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 103.
Amendments 100 and 103 will make important adjustments to the grounds on which a parent's consent to an adoption order can be dispensed with by the court.
Amendment 100 will amend section 33(2A). As amended at stage 2, subsection (2A) requires that, before a court can dispense with consent, not only must the welfare of the child require that the consent be dispensed with but either subsection (2B) or subsection (2C) must also apply. Amendment 100 will mean that, even where subsections (2B) and (2C) do not apply, the child's welfare alone will be enough to allow consent to be dispensed with. Amendment 100 is an important amendment as it widens the grounds on which consent can be dispensed with while still applying an appropriate test that respects the rights of the parents. The amendment will reduce the risk that the making of an adoption order will be delayed or will not take place at all because neither of the grounds at subsections (2B) and (2C) quite fits.
Amendment 103 will amend section 33(2B) so that, where a parent or guardian is unable to exercise parental responsibilities and rights—other than those regarding contact with the child—the court can dispense with their consent. Without such an amendment, the consent of a parent who maintains contact with the child but does not exercise any other parental responsibility or right could not be dispensed with.
I move amendment 100.
I thank the minister for lodging the amendments in the group. As he will be aware from the representations that he received, including my own, much concern was expressed at stage 2 that the grounds for dispensing with parental rights and responsibilities had been excessively narrowed such that the bill made no requirement for a court to take into account the past history and conduct that had led to the child's current situation. The fear was that, in practice, that would mean an increase in the number of contested cases and a fall in the number of successful adoptions. Amendments 100 and 103 will rectify that situation and, therefore, will be widely welcomed.
I, too, raised these matters in the committee. The amendments go some way to correcting a flaw in the Executive amendments at stage 2 that would make it too easy for birth parents to reclaim a child who had already formed bonds with his new parents. I am grateful to the minister for amendments 100 and 103, which should be agreed to.
Obviously, it is much better if an adoption order can be made with the birth parents' consent, but it is important that we get the grounds right for dispensing with parental consent. Amendment 100 goes a long way to ensuring that, in the adoption process, absolute primacy is given to what is in the best interests of the child. I thank the Executive for lodging amendment 100 in particular.
Amendment 100 agreed to.
Amendment 103 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
I suspend consideration of amendments. There will be a brief suspension while the Presiding Officer takes the chair.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—