Meeting of the Parliament 22 November 2016
A number of members have spoken about the consensual nature of today’s debate. Although that is a fair point to make, there is rather a lot to which I need to respond.
The debate was framed around adoption and permanence for an important reason. Although much of the debate has rightly focused on adoption, with this being adoption week, there are other routes to permanence. The four legal routes are adoption, rehabilitated to return home, permanence orders—which can result in foster or residential placements—and kinship care orders. Throughout the debate we have heard members reflect on those different routes to permanence. It is important that we recognise that all those routes can—and will—deliver substantially better outcomes for young people.
I will begin at the beginning of the debate. Monica Lennon rightly spoke about support for adoptive families. It is important to say that support is available. Last month, I met Adoption UK and have agreed that the Scottish Government will work in conjunction with it and other stakeholders to review the therapeutic support that is available and—crucially—to ensure that it is clearly signposted.
The Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007, which I mentioned in my opening speech, requires local authorities that are asked to do so—by, for example, an adopted child or someone who has adopted a child—to carry out an assessment of need for adoption support services. Where the assessment identifies a need for support services, local authorities are under a duty to provide them. Following an assessment of need, the support that is available includes information, advice, guidance, signposting, counselling, opportunities for adoptive parents to interact, mediation of contact with the birth family, mediation services where an adoptive family is at risk of disruption—a number of members talked about that—financial support, basic life-story work and short-break care where no therapeutic input is provided. A number of support mechanisms can be accessed; the question is whether they are readily identifiable by adoptive families. I have agreed with Adoption UK that I will look at the issue in more detail.
Members talked about the disparity between the number of children who are seeking adoption and the number of prospective adopters. As of today, there are 140 children on the adoption register and 132 prospective adopters—there is a disparity, but it is perhaps not the gulf that was suggested by some members’ remarks. However, we want to do more to encourage people to come forward as prospective adopters.
Jenny Gilruth made important points about the health and wellbeing aspects of the curriculum for excellence and about the need to dispel the myth whereby adoption is seen as being about babies, when in fact it is sometimes young or older children who need to be adopted.
Liz Smith talked about the timescale for adoption, as highlighted in the 2011 SCRA report. A guiding principle behind the permanence and care excellence programme is to reduce unacceptable delays in achieving permanence.
I am not persuaded that we need an adoption tsar. A lot of good work is being done out there to promote adoption.