[Metrobeans]

B422 - Transracial Adoptions Act 2012, TSR Government (Second Reading)

Transracial Adoptions Act 2012

An Act instituting guidelines for the role of ethnicity in adoption procedure.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Part I: Guidelines

1 Removal of Restrictions

(1) For the purposes of this Act:

(a) "Ethnicity" is as defined by the British Census 2011.

(2) All restrictions relating to the adoption of children by a person/people of another ethnicity to the child are defunct.
(3) Local authorities' children's services are prevented from denying adoption on the basis of differences in ethnicity between the adoptee and the adopter(s).
(4) Ethnicity is a factor for assessing the appropriateness of potential adopters.

(a) It is assumed to be beneficial for a child to be adopted by parents of the same ethnicity.

Part II: Miscellaneous

2 Short Title

(1) This Act may be cited as the Mixed Race Adoptions Act 2012.

3 Commencement

(1) This Act comes into law two months following Royal Assent.

Notes

Rt. Hon. Lipvig MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

This Bill has been brought forward for two reasons. First, the RL Government is planning to bring in reforms similar to what this Bill proposes. Secondly, it is my belief, and the belief of this Coalition, that race should not delay the adoption process. This Bill advances the prospects of children who are currently unfortunately disadvantaged by the well-meaning policies of certain local authorities. Getting children adopted into loving, caring, safe families is a priority. This, I am sure we can all agree, is a worthy cause.
Rt. Hon. JPKC MP, Secretary of State for Equalities:

The second reading of this Bill codifies a sensible and balanced approach to ethnicity in the adoption process. This Coalition recognises that children are best suited to being adopted by families that share their ethnic background, and this is reflected by the addition of (4)(a) to the Bill. However, we understand that children will always thrive in stable and loving adoptive families more than they can in the care system, and for this reason we believe that although important to find a totally appropriate family for the child in care, this should not come at the cost of the child staying longer than necessary in this system. The Bill ensures that this is the policy of all local authorities.

[TopHat]

Aye. Glad to see the Coalition is willing to listen on at least some fronts.

[meenu89]

Aye.

[JPKC]

Aye.

Hopefully every Party can support this Bill.

[Moleman1996]

Aye, I cannot see how any party could have an issue with this bill, regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum. It is simply common sense.

[xXedixXx]

Nay, it still doesn't make sense. As TopHat pointed out previously "there are no restrictions". So it doesn't make sense to say that you're removing restrictions that don't exist anyway...

[JPKC]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Nay, it still doesn't make sense. As TopHat pointed out previously "there are no restrictions". So it doesn't make sense to say that you're removing restrictions that don't exist anyway...

An Act instituting guidelines for the role of ethnicity in adoption procedure.

Would you really vote against a good Bill simply because there's some slight inconsistency with one aspect of the wording (namely the title given to Part I)?


This Bill aims to put in place a uniform approach to ethnicity/race across all local authorities' children's services, as currently it is too fickle an area.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by JPKC)
Would you really vote against a good Bill simply because there's some slight inconsistency with one aspect of the wording (namely the title given to Part I)?


This Bill aims to put in place a uniform approach to ethnicity/race across all local authorities' children's services, as currently it is too fickle an area.

It doesn't make any sense as it stands.

It's like me saying: "I would prefer it if people didn't smoke on buses, but I'm not forcing you not to."

Then someone else coming along saying: "I demand that all restrictions on smoking on buses be revoked." when there were no restrictions in the first place.

It simply needs to be changed and should have been done in the previous reading, as no effort was made to do this I will be voting no unless it goes to a third reading.

[toronto353]

Aye.

[JPKC]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
It doesn't make any sense as it stands.

It's like me saying: "I would prefer it if people didn't smoke on buses, but I'm not forcing you not to."

Then someone else coming along saying: "I demand that all restrictions on smoking on buses be revoked." when there were no restrictions in the first place.

It simply needs to be changed and should have been done in the previous reading, as no effort was made to do this I will be voting no unless it goes to a third reading.

(1) For the purposes of this Act:

(a) "Ethnicity" is as defined by the British Census 2011.

(2) All restrictions relating to the adoption of children by a person/people of another ethnicity to the child are defunct.
(3) Local authorities' children's services are prevented from denying adoption on the basis of differences in ethnicity between the adoptee and the adopter(s).
(4) Ethnicity is a factor for assessing the appropriateness of potential adopters.

(a) It is assumed to be beneficial for a child to be adopted by parents of the same ethnicity.

I'm not sure I follow, what part of the Bill, as above, do you disagree with? I think you're arguing that the whole Bill is worth voting 'no' against because of one somewhat insignificant line: "Removal of Restrictions".

Restrictions aren't being removed, so it was a poor section title, but that's really not worth changing with a third reading. It has absolutely zero impact on what the Bill actually does. It looks petty.

(Original post by TopHat)
Aye. Glad to see the Coalition is willing to listen on at least some fronts.

Where do you stand on the Bill?

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by JPKC)
I'm not sure I follow, what part of the Bill, as above, do you disagree with? I think you're arguing that the whole Bill is worth voting 'no' against because of one somewhat insignificant line: "Removal of Restrictions".

Restrictions aren't being removed, so it was a poor section title, but that's really not worth changing with a third reading. It has absolutely zero impact on what the Bill actually does. It looks petty.

(2) Needs changing. It's simply not right.

[Birchington]

Aye.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
Where do you stand on the Bill?

From a really technical standpoint, (2) is pointless because these restrictions never existed, and (3) and (4) contradict each other, because (3) says ethnicity can't be used at all, while (4)(a) says it can, but only a preferential basis.

I mean, I'm an aye because I think it's clear enough what (3) means and (2) doesn't actually make the bill bad, it's just... pointless, but there are still little thing which could be fixed.

[JPKC]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
(2) Needs changing. It's simply not right.

Well technically it is under the local rules of certain children's services. Some local authorities operate polices that are akin to same-race adoption for younger children, this was the conclusion drawn by both the Government (why else would they be looking to change it?) and the University of Bradford (I can't find a direct link to the research, but here's a preview that gives the gist). Besides, if there were no restrictions Clause (2) would have no impact at all, it hardly seems like a viable dealbreaker.

The Bill was badly worded.

[cl_steele]

aye.

[Lipvig]

Obviously an aye from me, although peoples concerns will be taken into account for the third reading.

[jsb123]

Aye from me.

[RoryS]

Aye from moi.

[DebatingGreg]

It's probably badly worded, but an Aye for the general purpose of the bill.

[wizardtop]

Aye from me as well