Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to touch on advocacy, which I know that Pam Duncan-Glancy was going to move on to. I do not know whether you heard the evidence in the previous evidence session. My background is 15 years as a councillor, during which I dealt with situations involving kids with care experience; advocacy was a really important part of their journey, not only for them but for their families. Section 4 of the bill talks about new

“rights of access to care experience advocacy services”,

with that right shaped by secondary legislation. What would that secondary legislation look like?

The other key thing is that this is almost an urban versus rural discussion, because advocacy services are probably much easier to access in urban areas than in rural ones. When we spoke to the sheriff in the previous evidence session, we found that this also related to section 18, which is on advocacy in the hearings system. Is there confusion on that point? What are your thoughts on that?

Claire Burns, I will come to you on that question and then open it up to anybody else who wants to come in.

I do not know whether Maria Galli or Kate Thompson wishes to come in.

It does. Before I come to David Mackie to ask about the hearings system, I want to highlight a key point that I discussed when I met Who Cares? Scotland. As someone who represents East Lothian, which is a mix of urban and rural, I think that it is probably easier for someone to access an advocacy service in Edinburgh or Glasgow than it is for someone in the Highlands. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach to provision.

What are your thoughts on that? Independent advocacy is important, but provision needs to be as universal as possible across the whole of Scotland, and that will not be as easy in remote areas.

I will get your thoughts on that and then come to David Mackie on the hearings system.

I want to build on some of the discussions that we have had about advocacy services and to delve a little bit deeper into that issue. Having been a councillor for 15 years and having spoken to families and care-experienced children, I know that that is really important, but it is now complex.

Section 4 of the bill mentions

“rights of access to care experience advocacy services.”

It is a complex area, as we know, and there are also advocacy services for children’s hearings, which are covered in section 18 of the bill. Several organisations, including The Promise Scotland, have commented to an extent on the new rights of access to care experience advocacy services that will be shaped by secondary legislation. What will those services look like in practice? Secondary legislation will be an important part of determining that. How will those services interact with section 18 of the bill, which covers advocacy in the hearings system? Given that we have started to discuss the system, it is an important point.

That is helpful, thank you.

Thanks, Claire. Does anybody else want to come in on that point?

Very briefly, before she comes in, how do we measure how effective the advocacy process has been? I think that we asked our previous witnesses about that, too. It is fine to have access to that, but how do we measure its effectiveness?

I come to David Mackie on the hearings system specifically, and then I will go to Fiona Duncan.

A key point is how we measure the effectiveness of advocacy. It is one thing to have it in place, but how do we measure its effectiveness? Advocacy in the hearings system is important, so I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Fiona Duncan, I will just come to you to talk about the points that Fraser McKinlay and David Mackie have made. I am an advocate of advocacy services and, having seen them work in practice, I know that they can make a huge difference to where children are in a process that can be an extremely troubling for them. What are your thoughts on that? Perhaps you could come back to the point about how we measure the effectiveness of advocacy.

Good morning. I will follow up on the discussions about following the money and accountability. Last week, we had a meeting with CARM, and I will read part of a statement that was made by one of the participants:

“One of the biggest challenges we faced was ensuring that our voices translated into meaningful influence. While our panel’s questions were put directly to the Minister, it was evident that translating these into real change requires persistence, transparency, and stronger accountability mechanisms.”

That goes back to the point that Angela O’Hagan made about the Scottish Government meeting its minimum core responsibilities. One issue that came through strongly was a real lack of data—which confirms what has been said. That also relates to lived experience. We have heard about that today. It does not just relate to the issues that were raised through CARM; it goes beyond that.

Is that indicative of what is happening in other parts of the budget? Last week, we heard about a case study on employability, and the issues there came through strongly. In your experience, does the same thing come through in other parts of the budget? Does that demonstrate that the minimum core requirements are being met or not? The accountability issue came through really strongly last week, in that the Government has been passing monies on but has not been following the money to see the outcomes.