Hansard

I will stumble through that again.

There has been a positive, consensual tone to the debate, and if that is different, I suggest that it is because we are pleased not to be debating Europe and Brexit, as we have become used to doing on a Tuesday afternoon.

A debate on adoption was bound to strike a different tone. It is not just an important issue but one with real and human impacts. I welcome the Government’s motion highlighting the first ever adoption week. I echo Mark McDonald’s initial comments and thank the people and agencies involved in making adoption work in Scotland. They do massively important work. I also note Mark McDonald’s announcements on adoption activity days and PACE. I think that everyone in the chamber welcomes every effort that is made to improve adoption, by not just finding placements for children who are seeking adoption, but supporting those placements thereafter. In some ways, Liz Smith summed it up best when she said that although there may be consensus, there must not be complacency.

I hope that adoption week will be an opportunity to talk about the successes of adoption, especially for those who have only recently become allowed to adopt, and to dispel the myths that sometimes surround adoption. I hope that it will also be an opportunity to put adoption into the context of looked-after children as a whole and talk about the placement stability that it offers. Finally, I hope that it will present an opportunity for the Government to look at support for families after a child is adopted. I welcome the fact that the Government is backing our amendment. I welcome, too, the calls by Adoption UK and Scottish Adoption for a fair deal for adoptive families.

I commend Adoption UK, Scotland’s adoption register and the Scottish Government for putting together the document “Reality of Adoption in Scotland”. It is not often that I get emotional preparing for debates, but the stories in that document are powerful and important. If we are to improve understanding of adoption, we need to bring out those important stories.

I was particularly struck by the stories of two LGBT couples who have adopted since the 2007 act allowed same-sex couples to adopt for the first time. They spoke of their apprehension as they went through the process and the pride of parenthood. One couple said that it was the best thing that they had ever done. I was pleased to hear Mark McDonald acknowledge the work of Hugh Henry and Robert Brown, because it was the Labour coalition Government that made those new families possible when it introduced its bill in 2006.

However, there seems to be some way to go in that regard when we compare Scotland to other parts of the UK. In England, 1,690 adoptions to same-sex adopters took place last year, compared to just 67 in Scotland. One in 12 adopters were same sex in England, one in 13 in Wales and just one in 23 in Scotland. I would therefore be interested in the Government’s take on that trend and whether a cultural shift is needed to bring things in line, or indeed whether new legislation or guidance is required.

The message from this week should certainly amplify those voices. It should also bust the myths that surround adoption: on age, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, income and nationality. It does not matter—adoption is open to all. We heard from Monica Lennon and others about the stereotype of the unwanted baby being taken in and rescued by usually affluent people. However, we know that adoption can be an option for looked-after children of all ages. It is open to couples and single people, affluent or not. It is important that, this week, and in this debate, we seek to dispel those myths, not further them.

Jeremy Balfour did a very good job of bringing to life the gap between the number of children seeking adoption and the placements made. It is worth noting that adoption is rare in comparison to the total number of looked-after children in Scotland. We have 15,000 looked-after children in Scotland, while 4,000 children cease to be looked after each year. Adoption is the destination of just 7 per cent of those young people. Although we very much welcome the increased attention that adoption gets this week, as a Parliament, we must put adoption in context: it is not the usual final destination for children in care.

I thank Fulton MacGregor for his comments this afternoon, because he shed some light on the experience of working in the system, its complexities, the judgments that have to be made and the balancing of interests. We must always seek to ensure that the system and those processes are carried out as efficiently as possible.

Another set of professional experiences that we heard this afternoon came from Jenny Gilruth, who did an excellent job in highlighting the long-term impacts—particularly the educational impacts—that are experienced by many people who come from care and are adopted.

Permanence was highlighted throughout the debate. Alison Johnstone described the child for whom the clock never stops ticking, and the academic research on multiple placements for looked-after children only serves to underline the importance of permanence. There is a large body of evidence that links multiple placements with problems with behaviour, mental health, education, employment, social relationships, financial management and housing. Placement instability further reduces the opportunity for children to develop secure, permanent attachments, leading to transitory relationships, which can amount to greater confusion and a lack of social identity.

Adoption is not the only way to reduce placement instability. Long-term fostering can achieve that, as can kinship care, as Bob Doris pointed out, and residential care. However, adoption is an important and transformative way to provide permanence and reduce the number of placements.

Iain Gray did an excellent job of highlighting the need for on-going support for adoptive families, and other speakers highlighted that, too. As Monica Lennon said when she spoke about our amendment on that subject at the beginning of the debate, a child who has come from a traumatic background and is adopted still needs support the day after adoption. Adoption means permanence, but added barriers to support should not be put up. It is right, therefore, that priority support should be given to those adoptive families who need it, both in education and in mental health services.

Scottish Labour is happy to back the Government’s motion, which marks the beginning of adoption week, and we hope that members will consider backing our amendment to recognise that families with adopted children face challenges and need support in education and mental health services.