Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments in my name, which focus on strengthening adoption support in Scotland and, crucially, on preventing adoption breakdown.

Before I turn to the individual amendments, I place on record my thanks to the Scottish Government—particularly the minister—for its constructive and on-going engagement on the amendments, right up to late yesterday, when we were still discussing them. I also acknowledge the work of the cross-party group on social work, which I chair, and through which I have engaged extensively with practitioners, adopters and care-experienced people. That work has been instrumental in shaping the amendments. I also place on record that, as a registered social worker, my experience of working with children, families and adoptive families over a long time has influenced the amendments. Most importantly, I have been contacted directly by constituents in my area and by adoptive families and adopted people across Scotland, who have shared deeply personal experiences of the challenges that they have faced after an adoption order was granted and of the consequences when the right support is not available at the right time. Their voices are at the heart of the amendments.

Taken together, the proposals are about ensuring that adoption support is seen as an essential, sustained part of our adoption system.

Amendment 11 would add “specialist post-adoption social work” to the list of adoption support services under section 1 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. Local authorities already have a duty to provide adoption support services but, too often, families report losing access to specialist expertise once the adoption order is granted. There are many reasons for that, including that families themselves may not want social work support.

The amendment seeks to ensure that adoptive families are not left without expert, trauma-informed support at the point when challenges may become more, rather than less, complex. One parent who contacted me about the lack of post-adoption social work for their child said:

“We adopted him and love him dearly. From a more clinical perspective, adoptive parents save the system a significant amount of money over a child’s lifetime, while also helping to ensure that child grows into an adult who can contribute positively to society and reach their full potential. This brings into sharp focus the lack of meaningful post-adoption support. [There are] complex neurodiverse needs common among children awaiting adoption. Yet there appears to be a ‘cliff-edge’ approach, where support effectively ends once the adoption paperwork is signed. This must change.”

That is a long quote, but I feel that it is powerful.

I make it clear that amendment 11 is not about blaming social work adoption services. I have many ex-colleagues who now work in adoption services and I know that their work depends on the priorities in social work and case loads, as Miles Briggs mentioned in relation to a previous amendment. This amendment is about where support for newly adoptive families fits in.

Amendment 12 would take a similar approach by adding “peer support” to the list of adoption support services. Evidence from adopters consistently highlights the value of peer support, both before and after adoption, and the distinct needs that arise at different stages of the adoption journey, in particular during the teenage years. This amendment recognises the importance of structured, accessible peer support as part of a comprehensive support offer. We found, through the work of the cross-party group on social work, that a lot of adoptive parents actually found each other after adoption breakdown, through forums or other means, and they felt that it would have been more useful to have such support at an earlier stage.

Amendment 13 would require local authorities, when carrying out their duty to provide an adoption service, to have regard to

“the desirability of ensuring sustainable funding for adoption support services to prevent adoption breakdown”.

The amendment reflects a clear message from both families and professionals that prevention and early support are significantly more effective, and more cost-effective, than responding after a crisis has occurred. Adoption breakdown is traumatic for children and families, and it also places additional pressure on already stretched public services. Sustainable funding is, therefore, the right and prudent approach.

In another case in which I have been involved, a parent who feared that they may experience an adoption breakdown said:

“We had been in the process of adopting again—something we were so excited about—but we’ve had to stop because we can’t keep everyone safe right now”.

They went on to say that

“living through this has shown me just how broken the system is for families like ours.”

Again, that is a powerful quote for committee members to consider.

Amendment 14 would require ministers to make regulations to ensure recognition of

“care-experienced status for the purposes of accessing relevant services and support, including … mental health … services.”

Although I agree—and I have discussed this with the minister—that not all services that are available to care-experienced people will be relevant to adopted children, it is vital that adopted children’s care-experienced status and their rights to support are properly recognised, and that they get the support that they need.

That is particularly important with regard to access to mental health support and fast-track access to child and adolescent mental health services, in line with the commitments set out in “The Promise”. I am sure that other members around the table will have had requests for support from CAMHS for adopted children. Children who have been adopted have often, by the very nature of adoption, had traumatic experiences in their early life similar to those with care experience, and they really need CAMHS support. As such, this amendment could make a real, and very big, change.

Amendment 15 would insert a new section into the 2007 act that would require ministers to make regulations setting out

“a definition of ‘adoption breakdown’”

alongside

“guidance … on the collection and sharing of information.

At present, the lack of a national definition and consistent data collection makes it extremely difficult to monitor trends, learn from experience or take preventative action. This amendment would bring transparency, learning and improvement to our engagement with adoption breakdown.

Amendment 15 is more about being better informed instead of assigning blame, and I want to acknowledge the explicit welcome that The Promise Scotland and Barnardo’s have given it in their stage 2 briefings.

Barnardo’s has also supported my final amendment—amendment 16—which would require ministers to produce a report on funding for therapeutic support as part of adoption support services, including consideration of whether Scotland should establish a national therapeutic support fund. The amendment draws on the model of England’s adoption and special guardianship support fund and responds directly to concerns raised by families about unequal access to therapeutic support, depending on where they live. A national approach has the potential to improve consistency, equity and outcomes.

These amendments are, as I said at the start of my remarks, grounded in the lived experience of adoptive families, the expertise of social work professionals and the clear message that adoption support must be sustained, specialist and preventative.

I move amendment 11.

I thank the minister for her engagement throughout the development of the amendments, including the offer that she has just made, which, as I said at the outset, she has made before. I do not intend to press amendment 11 or move any of my other amendments in this group, based on the minister’s offer to work with me ahead of stage 3.

The minister and her team have demonstrated that they want to work with me in this area, not just through the passage of the bill but through the minister’s appearance at the cross-party group sessions that we had on adoption. The people there were impressed with the minister’s commitment to this particular area. On that basis, I withdraw amendment 11 and will work with the minister ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 12 to 16 not moved.

Section 8—Children’s residential care services: profit limitation

10:15

Good afternoon. I have a brief question, because I am conscious of the time. This follows on from the previous session, with the FBU. What more can you do to ensure that the union and workers throughout the service are involved and on board with how you are taking forward any reforms? I am asking that because I have a really good relationship with my local fire station in Coatbridge. Fire officers come to me regularly about a number of issues, and I have a good relationship with the folk who run that station—I have always been made welcome. However, when decisions come up, such as the reforms, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between what firefighters on the ground tell us will be the consequences and what we hear in the committee or from the Government. It seems that relationships are generally good, but, at times like this, is there anything more that you can do to ensure that the folk who work in the service are fully on board?

Thanks. That is helpful.

That is helpful. Do you not think that the examples that I gave would be beneficial at a national level? My understanding from what you say is that you could have situations where hospital appointments would be exempt in some local authorities and not in others, and the same with court appearances. Do you not think that that gives people a wee bit of a confused message across the board?

You mention Highland, which might well put in an exemption, because it gets a lot of people travelling to use its hospitals, but, for example, Monklands hospital in my area, which will be a new hospital within a few years, might well get people travelling in as well. However, if North Lanarkshire Council does not put that exemption in, people will be getting a tourist tax.

Good morning. I apologise for being slightly late.

As the convener said, I have a couple of questions on exemptions. Was any consideration given to including further exemptions for people who are travelling to medical appointments or court appearances and for accommodation providers with charitable status?

Was any further consideration given to including that in the visitor levy regulations that we will look at later in the meeting?

Local authorities have that power in the bill currently.

It is not so much a supplementary as a different question. When I was looking through our briefing papers, I felt that this was probably the best place to bring it in. If you can bear with me, I am happy to bring it in now or at the end—at your discretion, convener.

I guess that you are saying that we will need to see how the levy works in the fullness of time. I understand that; I am asking questions when we do not know how things will work out.

More broadly, I am pointing out that Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and some of the other council areas that have been mentioned and are represented here today, are able to introduce visitor levy schemes that raise significant sums of money, which can be reinvested in local services. There are other council areas, however, where the tourism infrastructure, particularly for overnight stays, just is not there to the same extent and they could not generate the same money to put back into services. At the end of the financial year, there would be a disparity. Would the Scottish Government need to be involved in levelling the playing field, if you like, for want of a better expression?