Hansard

I do not have total confidence that I have sufficient brain cells to see my way to the end of this lot today, but I will do my best.In its stage 1 report, the committee asked why we had chosen to create a tripartite structure for adoption support services and suggested that those services should be provided in a holistic way. We indicated to the committee that we agreed with that, and the Executive amendments that are under consideration in the first group are a consequence of that change. The key amendment is amendment 11, which removes section 1(2). That subsection specified that an adoption service would consist of pre-adoption services, adoption support services and post-adoption services. We are removing that structure and replacing it with a single adoption support service, which more accurately reflects current practice.People will, of course, still be able to get adoption support at different points in the adoption process, but the availability of support will not now depend on the point in the process at which they find themselves. People will be able to request a service when they feel that they need it, regardless of which stage in the adoption process they have reached. That change is right in principle and helps to clarify the structure of support. The other Executive amendments that will be considered in this group are connected to that change. For example, throughout the bill, we are changing references to "a service" to "services" and removing references to "pre-adoption services", "adoption support services" and "post-adoption services", replacing them with the phrase "adoption support services".The general thrust of those amendments has won general approval. However, some disquiet has been expressed about using the phrase "adoption support services" for all services. Amendment 166 and the consequential amendments 169 to 171, lodged by Adam Ingram, pick up on that.The essence of amendment 166 is to distinguish between arrangements for assessing and matching prospective adopters and the children whom they might adopt and other adoption support services, and to place them all under the collective banner "an adoption service". In most respects, the distinction is purely semantic. Amendment 166 would not alter the services that would be provided but would simply distinguish between services that are labelled adoption support services and other services. Semantics can be important, and it is important to reflect the way in which practitioners in the field think about such issues. However, if we are to make such an amendment, we should ensure that it is properly reflected throughout the bill. Although Adam Ingram has included some consequential amendments, others would be required, and some duplication of section 6(1) would also be created. Therefore, if Adam Ingram and the rest of the committee are agreeable, I will reconsider the bill following stage 2, once we have put in the new structure, and will try to reflect at stage 3 the sense of what Adam Ingram intends to achieve, to ensure that the bill fits together in the way that we want. The matter is complex, but we are sympathetic to the spirit of what Adam Ingram wants to achieve. That will involve revisiting some of the material that is affected by Executive amendments, but it would be best to form a coherent package. Therefore, the committee should agree to the Executive amendments and then we can address at stage 3 the semantic, labelling issue that Adam Ingram has rightly raised. He will no doubt make his case shortly, but I hope that he will reconsider moving amendments 166 and 169 to 171.I will say a few words about Executive amendment 125. By including the provision that the amendment proposes, we will make it possible for any regulations that are made under section 1 to apply differently to different parts of adoption support services. That is an important flexibility. The bill will rightly treat adoption support as a single service but, in practice, there may be differences that require different responses, and amendment 125 will allow regulations to be responsive to the particular circumstances of different parts of adoption support services.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment 13 is intended to ensure that registered adoption services do not include local authorities. However, the amendment is unnecessary. Section 1(5) of the bill refers to"an adoption service provided as mentioned in section 2(11)(b) of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001".That provision is to be amended by section 4 of the bill, to which members may find it helpful to refer. New paragraph (b) that section 4 will insert into section 2(11) of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 explicitly refers only to"a person other than a local authority".In other words, section 4 already deals with what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton seeks to achieve.Given the general restructuring of the provisions on adoption support services, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment 24 now seems superfluous. In any event, the amendment would have been superfluous given that the phrase "pre-adoption services" clearly implies a time prior to the making of an adoption order, as do the references in subsection 6(1) to "children who may be adopted" rather than children who have been adopted and"parents who may adopt a child"rather than parents who have adopted a child. I hope that Lord James will be prepared not to move amendments 13 and 24. It was right to lodge them, but they have already been dealt with.The aim of amendment 162, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, is to ensure that adoption agencies pay due regard to the views of the child when they make decisions about adoption. Although I am sympathetic to the idea behind the amendment, I believe that the bill already contains sufficient provision for that to be achieved. In particular, section 9 will require a court or adoption agency to have regard to the child's ascertainable views about adoption. In other words, before a court or adoption agency decides whether to seek an adoption order, it must ask the child for his or her views about it. If the child is opposed to adoption and is of sufficient maturity to be able to express that view, adoption will not be considered and another permanence option will be pursued.I invite the committee to agree to the Executive amendments in the group and in the light of the comments that I have made—particularly those on amendment 166—I hope that the members concerned will not move the non-Executive amendments in the group, either because they are unnecessary or because the issues with which they deal will be tackled at stage 3. Members will be tested on their understanding of the matters that I have discussed.I move amendment 8.