Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Education Committee, 04 Oct 2006

04 Oct 2006 · S2 · Education Committee

Item of business

Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Brown, Robert LD Glasgow Watch on SPTV

We have discussed amendment 166, in the name of Adam Ingram, which is a reasonably straightforward matter.The desire to have a seamless adoption support service at all different levels lies behind most of the amendments. There is an issue of phraseology. We have undertaken to look at that again at stage 3, when we will be able to see clearly the new structure that emerges at stage 2. That will deal, at least in part, with BAAF Scotland's point, to which Elaine Murray referred.I am not sure that I follow the whole of BAAF Scotland's argument. Any legislation changes phraseology and practice to some degree; the issue is, does it make them better or worse? We are prepared to reflect the reality of practice in the legislation and in guidance, but I would not be happy about rowing back to where we began. After taking evidence, the committee recommended to us that we should look at adoption support services as a whole. I am convinced that that is the proper approach to take.I would be more than happy to look at the substance of BAAF Scotland's concerns, either directly or with members. I have not seen the document to which Elaine Murray refers. Perhaps she could share it with me later, as I would be more than happy to look at it and to discuss it further. For our present purposes, I am not convinced that we should move back from a generalist approach to a more fragmented, compartmentalised structure of services. That is not the right approach, and we would lose out by adopting it. However, I am happy to examine the concerns that exist.The separate point of whether there is any rolling back of people's entitlements to support under the new arrangement will be addressed in the context of amendment 172, as Adam Ingram said. My understanding is that there will be no such rolling back. However, a very differently phrased arrangement has been put in place, and I would like to examine it more precisely. I have had discussions with officials about issues relating to how the long list of people who are entitled to services is phrased. Most of the phraseology reflects the advice that we received from the adoption policy review group, which wanted the rights of certain categories of people to be reinforced. It specifically mentioned siblings. Some people were a bit neglected under the previous arrangements. The importance of providing them with reassurance and counselling is increasingly recognised.The matter does not affect only adoptive parents and adopted children. A much wider range of people are affected by or have an interest in an adoption arrangement, and appropriate provision of services may need to be made for them. It may be sensible to look at the issue once we have dealt with all the changes to later sections of the bill. I am more than happy to talk to Adam Ingram about the matter in detail, once we have seen the revised structure of the bill. In general terms, the Executive's objective is to ensure that a comprehensive system of support is in place and that support is available in appropriate form to people affected by the adoption service who most need support. That is why there will be a new arrangement for assessment and identifying services that are additional to the more general arrangements for the provision of counselling and advice. I hope that Adam Ingram will be prepared to have that conversation and, in the meantime, not to move his amendments, so that we can look at the issues comprehensively in the run-up to stage 3.