Meeting of the Parliament 18 March 2026 [Draft]
Amendments in group 9 relate to permanence for children who are or have been looked after by a local authority.
I note at the outset that amendment 134 is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a vote. Instead, I am inclined to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 135. I thank the minister and Mr Whitfield for their engagement on the issue.
At its core, permanence is about a simple but fundamental principle: every child has the right to grow up in a safe, stable and loving home without unnecessary delay. Permanence cannot be considered as a solely technical or procedural matter; it must be regarded as central to a child’s wellbeing, development and sense of security and belonging.
When it is not possible for a child to stay with their birth family, permanence can be achieved through kinship care, foster care or adoption. Whichever route is taken, what matters most is that timely decisions are made so that children are not left in prolonged uncertainty.
Research compiled by the NSPCC, which helped me when drafting amendment 134, has consistently shown that children wait far too long for decisions to be made about their permanent home. On average, it can take more than two years for a permanence recommendation to be made. Many children then wait many months and, in some cases, years before they are living in a stable and permanent placement.
That level of delay would be unacceptable in any context, but it is particularly harmful for babies and very young children. The first few months and years of life are critical for attachment and development. During that time, children are especially dependent on consistent and secure care-giving relationships. Instability, uncertainty and repeated moves can have profound and long-lasting impacts.
We all know that delays affect outcomes. The longer a child remains in the system without permanence, the greater is the risk to their wellbeing, their relationships and their future stability. In the context of adoption, international evidence is clear that factors such as age at placement, early adversity and the number of moves all have a direct bearing on the likelihood of adoption breakdown at a later stage.
Despite a range of welcome policy initiatives, guidance and improvement programmes over many years, the issue of delay remains persistent, and it has remained persistent for a long time. That should give us all pause for thought. It suggests that the current approach might not be sufficient and that further, more focused consideration is required.
That is the purpose of my amendment 134. It would require the Scottish ministers to undertake a comprehensive and time-bound review of permanence in Scotland. It would ensure that ministers consider the substantial body of Scottish research, examine practice from across the world and assess whether different approaches, such as the use of statutory timescales, might help to reduce delays and improve outcomes. Importantly, the amendment would also ensure that the review was informed by those with lived experience, as well as by practitioners, local authorities and organisations working across adoption, fostering and kinship care.
I welcome the minister’s strong indication at stage 2 and during my discussions with her that a review of permanence is intended to take place early in the next parliamentary session. The purpose of my lodging and speaking to amendment 134 is to seek reassurance that the proposed review will be comprehensive in its scope, that it will be undertaken within a clear and timely framework and that it will lead to meaningful and measurable change for children. I would be grateful if the minister could set out how the Government intends to ensure that babies and very young children, who are often the most affected by delay, will be properly considered in that work and how progress will be monitored and reported to the Parliament.
I move amendment 134.